Bullish Bear
Member
- Messages
- 64
- Likes
- 0
The Green code?
Bullish Bear
Member
- Messages
- 64
- Likes
- 0
so its not like the Green Cross Code then? 
cassiopeia
Active member
- Messages
- 155
- Likes
- 4
If you want to know what the future holds just read the Bible.
Whether you believe it or not it has never been wrong in all of its forecast.
The bible is in the same camp as astrology and many other mystical beliefs, it's almost impossible to be completely wrong. Essentially all these methods are incapable of making specific predictions, they generalize and rely on liberal interpretations drawing inferences with everyday events. Moreover, people always remember the things which fit and forget those which don't confusing causation and chance.
Theories only stand up if they make proposals that can
later be tested by observation ?
This is very similar to Karl Popper's philosophy
“The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” however all theories which are correct are not necessarily scientific. Is therefore a trading system scientific, or would it fall into one of the unscientific camps below?
Astrology doesn’t pass the scientific test. It escapes being falsified by being vague. Vague predictions are irrefutable. Ex. “You will learn something today.” Can you imagine a day in which you learn absolutely nothing? No.
The Marxist theory of history made predictions and was falsified. But, the holders of this theory reinterpreted their theory and evidence, in other words, they made ad hoc changes to the theory. If I change my theory every time I get falsifying evidence, then it becomes impossible to refute.
Psychoanalytic theories are straightforwardly not testable, or irrefutable. This is not to say that they aren't useful or that they fail to describe some parts of the world accurately. But, it is not science.
Personally I think that trading could be scientific, despite being horribly complex to analyse. The problem is that most people are very unscientific in their approach, they try to find reasons why a particular TA system works, citing a few examples or examples which could be intepreted in many ways, rather than saying, but if you drew the line here or took this period you would lose money! You must include everything, the good bad and the ugly! Refutation isn't just about finding fault, it can add strength to a theory, we know trading systems must lose some of the time, the trick is to find out how much and often so we know how much capital to place on trades to obtain a certain return for the risk we take.
Whether you believe it or not it has never been wrong in all of its forecast.
The bible is in the same camp as astrology and many other mystical beliefs, it's almost impossible to be completely wrong. Essentially all these methods are incapable of making specific predictions, they generalize and rely on liberal interpretations drawing inferences with everyday events. Moreover, people always remember the things which fit and forget those which don't confusing causation and chance.
Theories only stand up if they make proposals that can
later be tested by observation ?
This is very similar to Karl Popper's philosophy
“The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” however all theories which are correct are not necessarily scientific. Is therefore a trading system scientific, or would it fall into one of the unscientific camps below?
Astrology doesn’t pass the scientific test. It escapes being falsified by being vague. Vague predictions are irrefutable. Ex. “You will learn something today.” Can you imagine a day in which you learn absolutely nothing? No.
The Marxist theory of history made predictions and was falsified. But, the holders of this theory reinterpreted their theory and evidence, in other words, they made ad hoc changes to the theory. If I change my theory every time I get falsifying evidence, then it becomes impossible to refute.
Psychoanalytic theories are straightforwardly not testable, or irrefutable. This is not to say that they aren't useful or that they fail to describe some parts of the world accurately. But, it is not science.
Personally I think that trading could be scientific, despite being horribly complex to analyse. The problem is that most people are very unscientific in their approach, they try to find reasons why a particular TA system works, citing a few examples or examples which could be intepreted in many ways, rather than saying, but if you drew the line here or took this period you would lose money! You must include everything, the good bad and the ugly! Refutation isn't just about finding fault, it can add strength to a theory, we know trading systems must lose some of the time, the trick is to find out how much and often so we know how much capital to place on trades to obtain a certain return for the risk we take.
cassiopeia
Theories only stand up if they make proposals that can
later be tested by observation ?
all theories which are correct are not necessarily scientific
Sounds to me as though you might be interested in the work
of John von Neumann.
Famous mathematician who tried to deal with real life situations
within the context of "The theory of Games".
Real life consists of bluffing, of little bits of deception, of asking yourself what is the other man going to think I mean to do.
And to me, that is part of the problem with trying to tame trading
and classify it as a science.
Market Makers, traders and other unwitting participants are
real life elements of a life game.
When you go long, its very important whether the next tick is up or down and of course, once you are in, you become a spectator.
Somebody else seeing that tick may then have different issues in mind and go short. Then he becomes a spectator and so on.
Maybe he just thinks you are a weak holder, can force you out and buy back at a cheaper price.
In its truest form, its just a a game of bluff and counter bluff.
Theories only stand up if they make proposals that can
later be tested by observation ?
all theories which are correct are not necessarily scientific
Sounds to me as though you might be interested in the work
of John von Neumann.
Famous mathematician who tried to deal with real life situations
within the context of "The theory of Games".
Real life consists of bluffing, of little bits of deception, of asking yourself what is the other man going to think I mean to do.
And to me, that is part of the problem with trying to tame trading
and classify it as a science.
Market Makers, traders and other unwitting participants are
real life elements of a life game.
When you go long, its very important whether the next tick is up or down and of course, once you are in, you become a spectator.
Somebody else seeing that tick may then have different issues in mind and go short. Then he becomes a spectator and so on.
Maybe he just thinks you are a weak holder, can force you out and buy back at a cheaper price.
In its truest form, its just a a game of bluff and counter bluff.
Last edited:
Im no bible scholar but i keep my eye on `the Good book` and i can say that the state of the world at the moment scares me. The only news is bad news and everything bad seems to be escalating. Thers no point trying to work out whats going to happen, thats like trying to pdlay chess with God. the best thing is just to be aware and be prepared.....and remeber, it will all become clear with rose tinted, 20-20 hindsight!!
If you guys really want to see a different slant on things try reading some of David Icke's books - they make most conspiracy theories seem like a child's game. I'm sceptical by nature but I really suspect that he is closer to the truth than most people would give him credit for.
Trader333
Moderator
- Messages
- 8,753
- Likes
- 1,026
I once spent over 2 years in a search for truth researching religions and the belief systems that are in the world. You wouldnt believe some of the stories that I have come across and some of the people I met including Mr Icke.
One thing that came across very strongly is that you can make people believe absolutley anything and in many cases they did. It has made me question the validity and honesty of almost everything which has served me well in addressing the utter nonsense that people would have you believe or trust in.
Paul
One thing that came across very strongly is that you can make people believe absolutley anything and in many cases they did. It has made me question the validity and honesty of almost everything which has served me well in addressing the utter nonsense that people would have you believe or trust in.
Paul
Paul
well somebody voted for this govrnment. It sure wasn't me.
so I think your point is well made.
Now, I couldn't even vote for the opposition !
"For what a man would like to be true, that he more readily
believes"
Liverpool 4 Manchester Utd 0
well, its happened before !
Farnborough 2 Arsenal 1 ?
lol
well somebody voted for this govrnment. It sure wasn't me.
so I think your point is well made.
Now, I couldn't even vote for the opposition !
"For what a man would like to be true, that he more readily
believes"
Liverpool 4 Manchester Utd 0
well, its happened before !
Farnborough 2 Arsenal 1 ?
lol
rocwell
It will all become very clear in the next few years - those laughing now will be crying then - and those crying now will be laughing.
To understand the Bible you have to believe in Jesus and hist teachings. If your do not believe these first principles then there is no need to go any further as everything else will be invisible to you.
It will all become very clear in the next few years - those laughing now will be crying then - and those crying now will be laughing.
To understand the Bible you have to believe in Jesus and hist teachings. If your do not believe these first principles then there is no need to go any further as everything else will be invisible to you.
Bonsai
The NEW is just the fulfillment of the OLD. You can't have one without the other. The new refers to the old.
I know some are still waiting for the Messiah and so am I.
But from what perspective are others looking for him.
Some believe that Jesus wasn't the Messiah and are still waiting for him.
I believe and know he is the Messiah and await his return for very different reasons.
The NEW is just the fulfillment of the OLD. You can't have one without the other. The new refers to the old.
I know some are still waiting for the Messiah and so am I.
But from what perspective are others looking for him.
Some believe that Jesus wasn't the Messiah and are still waiting for him.
I believe and know he is the Messiah and await his return for very different reasons.
mmiliar, of course, you are right, but then again, it is a two-way price, so you are most welcome to do the opposite of the bias..
what do you think the market makers do at the open at NYSE?
I wrote 4 A4 pages for a recent seminar about the games of the market makers in the US. The people in the seminar were shocked to learn about these games....
I cant change the rules, but I can play by them
it is not a question of being with anyone, as you suggest...
it is a question of wanting to be in a forum of likeminded people
what do you think the market makers do at the open at NYSE?
I wrote 4 A4 pages for a recent seminar about the games of the market makers in the US. The people in the seminar were shocked to learn about these games....
I cant change the rules, but I can play by them
it is not a question of being with anyone, as you suggest...
it is a question of wanting to be in a forum of likeminded people
Tom - my first post was a bit of a laugh and an 'in' joke. No offense intended. :|
On this board there are those who believe that every time they lose money it is because they have been ripped off by SB 'bias' (whatever that means). And there are those, like myself and sidinuk and others, who argue that things are a bit more complicated than that.
Like you say 'I cant change the rules, but I can play by them'. I totally agree.
Cheers
On this board there are those who believe that every time they lose money it is because they have been ripped off by SB 'bias' (whatever that means). And there are those, like myself and sidinuk and others, who argue that things are a bit more complicated than that.
Like you say 'I cant change the rules, but I can play by them'. I totally agree.
Cheers
Rg
"To understand the Bible you have to believe in Jesus "
you cant have it both ways. that's just piffle.
just because you may have St James version doesnt mean
anything. Many people don't have a 'New' in their bible at all.
"The NEW is just the fulfillment of the OLD. You can't have one without the other"
b*ll*ck*
edit
Oh dear, I have used a word that isn't in the new testament !
"To understand the Bible you have to believe in Jesus "
you cant have it both ways. that's just piffle.
just because you may have St James version doesnt mean
anything. Many people don't have a 'New' in their bible at all.
"The NEW is just the fulfillment of the OLD. You can't have one without the other"
b*ll*ck*
edit
Oh dear, I have used a word that isn't in the new testament !
Last edited:
