![]() That's kinda putting the cart before the horse though I can only offer as good an explanation for a mechanism of superdeterminism as one can offer for any mechanism that would control the randomness of quantum states or explain their intrinsic randomness. I think if there was a simple and satisfying answer to that question we probably wouldn't believe that quantum mechanics had intrinsic randomness. I don't know if that's more philosophically rigorous or comforting than assuming randomness is truly inherent, but intellectually I think it's natural to try to understand the why, and just saying "things are ultimately random" is not intellectually compelling. Less eli5, this would mean that instead of locality being violated, the entire universe is our local space and everything down to individual quantum state measurements are part of a choreographed dance billions of years and billions of lightyears in the making. eli5 of that is kinda like the universe set everything in motion billions of years ago, so even the measurements of quantum states that would be made are, in effect, predetermined. While I'd suggest that there's enough limitation to our current understanding of quantum mechanical behaviors that one should not jump to any definite conclusions regardless of current experimental results, there's also another theory called superdeterminism. So, can a self-aware market remain predictable for long? Again, the math suggests no. ![]() In the last four years, the market has been up twice, and down twice, during the "Santa Claus" period. But, as new tech opened up the market, and people became aware of this effect, purchases started to be made in advance of Thanksgiving in anticipation of the rally, so that it no longer 'predictably' exists. is market sentiment - that is, does the buying public want to buy or sell stocks? There the question of predictable hinges on the ability of the organism - the stock market - to react to the identification of this prediction.įor example, the "Santa Claus" rally predictably took place between Thanksgiving and Christmas for many years. The tech analysts argue what they are really measuring through things like positive and negative volume, old price charts, etc. (This is a tl dr of the random walk argument). All because he flipped heads 12 times in a row. He'll be the Genius of Wall Street, and will command multi-million dollar speaking fees, and 5+25 commissions. Again, half fail, but we're still likely to have at least one guy who flipped heads 12 times in a row when all is said and done. Everyone will think they are really smart, and will follow their next take. Let's call them "stockbrokers", and their 6 picks are six correct market calls. Half of those will lose their 'unbeaten' streak on the flip but half will survive. But some will flip 3 heads, and some 3 tails. Most people will flip at least one head and at least one tail in three tries. There's a group called 'technical analysts' who think the market is predictable to some extent there's another group, called 'random walkers', who believe there is no magic to stock picking, and that what we believe to be skill is simply longer term luck.įor example, say we had 10,000 people flipping coins. That's a different question, isn't it? You made me think of the stock market right away. It's possible that there are factors that we just haven't been able to measure that do make physics deterministic, but conceivably it might be nondeterministic. At a quantum mechanical level, physics seems to be truly random, with even apparently identical systems doing different things. ![]() None of these can be precisely measured (or precisely controlled) if you're just flipping a coin by hand, so neither heads nor tails is more likely than the other from your point of view.Īt a more fundamental level, we don't even know if events are always set by starting conditions, which is a concept called determinism. Which face it lands on is going to be set once it's flipped, but it depends on the coin's position, velocity, shape, as well as the state of the air around it and where it lands. So, it makes sense for the other person to call it random they have no way to predict the card that would work more than pure chance. There's nothing in their mind that suggests that any card is more likely than any other to be on top. ![]() However, from their point of view, they have no information about the deck. If someone else comes in and draws a card, for you, it's obviously not random. You peek at the top one and see that it's the 3 of diamonds. Say there's a shuffled deck of cards in front of you. Often, calling things random in real life is based on knowledge. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |