Can I predict the value of BTC/USD?

[macsga]

Implicit in your point is that we can not specify initial conditions with exact precision due to Planck's constant (which is intimately related to that the speed-of-light is finite and also conceptually related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

Exactly. That's about it. BTW, I've read all the links you PMd me (thank you) on Armstrong Economics (BTW, most of them I've already was aware of; never dived in detail though). I think he has gone a step further than most of us (ok, at least me). The conclusive thought of his, based on "following the pattern of a Stokes diagram on 3D" truly *TRULY* amazes me. I'm sure he has his reasons for not sharing "which is the triple differential equation that rules our world"; but based on his thesis, -more or less- this is about it.

That is all fine and dandy, except it is irrelevant to games of chance in real world outcomes. If it were true that no order emerged from chaos, then entropy would be simultaneously infinite (internally) and 0 (externally) and nothing could exist from an internal nor external perspective. The internal perspective would fail to find any relative order (no point of reference with which to make an observation) and the external observer would observe a void.

First things first. Entropy is coming from the words "Eν τρoπή" which -in essence- means "during the process". What you're presenting here is a "burning a straw man" paradigm. But you see, on the contrary, Entropy is totally different if you change the initial conditions; as a totally different chaotic model is built. The internal perspective wouldn't fail to find a relative order since you -theoretically- could pick any single moment as a "Zero Point". Thus a new Entropic order within a specifically chosen chaos. This is pretty similar with picking as accurately as possible the initial conditions.

Further reading: Cellular Automata.

Order exists at higher levels of conceptualization. And this is your myopia on our disagreement about Armstrong's computer model and your other egregious attack on knowledge. I encourage you to delve into the links I gave you to Armstrong's writings about his model and chaos theory wherein he explains that moving to higher dimensions can extract order that is hidden in lower dimensional conceptualizations similar to your myopia here.

P.S. you are correct that the existing stochastic models employed are one-dimensional and thus don't have the scope to pull order out-of-chaos. Armstrong developed a multi-dimensional entropy stochastic model which extracts hidden order.

First of, it's not bad for someone to admit his myopia. I believe we have a doctor here for these kind of cases, I hope he will give me a nice price fixing my 13/13 vision (joking)...

Second:
I disagree. Order DOESN'T exists ONLY at higher levels of conceptualization. There's a mathematical proof for this. To put it on another perspective; Chaos incorporates Entropy from its very beginning. Otherwise entropy would've been non existent in the first place. That's why we are here and be able to talk about it. BTW: I'm not a personal fan of Anthropocentric Model, but some times like this one, I truly struggle not to.

Third:
I must admit I gained a lot of info from your links (thank you, once more). I must also admit I'm a bit impatient to learn more (ie: how he normalizes the abnormalities, while choosing to leave aside "minor details"). Such a model is a true gem. I have more questions, but I don't think littering a place like this with an off-topic matter like "prediction of entropic morphemes within a chaotic model" is something I like to do... (This is sarcasm)

PS: my other egregious attack on knowledge points to a link that I have not posted anything... Do you want to fix it / correct it?

[TPTB_need_war]

PS: my other egregious attack on knowledge points to a link that I have not posted anything... Do you want to fix it / correct it?

It points to a quote of you and clicking the link of that quote takes the reader to your post immediately above mine and contains the context of your argument. Is that insufficient or did I misunderstand your grievance?

I will come back some other time to read and digest what you have written here. The theoretical is a lower priority for me at this moment for reasons you may be able to imagine. Thank you for your cordial reply.

[macsga]

Now; lets make things simpler. Say we can set with a very good precision the initial conditions. We're now talking about a SIMPLE dynamic system here with fully determined initial conditions. Now pay attention: Even if you can set the initial conditions on such a system, small differences have a totally different outcome; so as the time goes by; your predictions are getting enormously difficult to be true, thus rendering the predictions useless. This system's behaviour is called "deterministic chaos" and was first observed by Edward Lorenz who defined it like this:

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. 1

Is this the one?

[TPTB_need_war]

I disagree. Order DOESN'T exists ONLY at higher levels of conceptualization. There's a mathematical proof for this.

I suspect the disagreement is only in definitions of words. I am trying to articulate that order is relative to perspective. So if you want to find order, you need a conceptualization (a.k.a. perspective) that enables to you recognize that order. I refer to that process as higher level, but that doesn't mean higher as in macroscopic versus quantum. It means higher in the sense of applying some rules on the interpretation other than the default one that rendered only noise.

Hey WTF are you praising PnF TA nonsense? Surely you know that TA does not have anything better than a 50/50 perspective on future prices moves, and worse than that if you include human emotion since one mathematical truth (of the wealth effect, i.e. mcap != capital invested) is the majority always has to lose more in the markets than the minority.

In case you need to refer to them again, I moved all the posts kLee deleted here.

Armstrong is predicting price moves correctly. I proved it again in the PnF thread.

[macsga]

I disagree. Order DOESN'T exists ONLY at higher levels of conceptualization. There's a mathematical proof for this.

I suspect the disagreement is only in definitions of words. I am trying to articulate that order is relative to perspective. So if you want to find order, you need a conceptualization (a.k.a. perspective) that enables to you recognize that order. I refer to that process as higher level, but that doesn't mean higher as in macroscopic versus quantum. It means higher in the sense of applying some rules on the interpretation other than the default one that rendered only noise.

Hey WTF are you praising PnF TA nonsense? Surely you know that TA does not have anything better than a 50/50 perspective on future prices moves, and worse than that if you include human emotion since one mathematical truth (of the wealth effect, i.e. mcap != capital invested) is the majority always has to lose more in the markets than the minority.

Hello and welcome.

Indeed it's often a compulsion of mine to disagree in order to create a fruitful discussion (how on earth we'd have a discussion if we'd agree on everything?). As you may understand the matter we're talking about is far more complex than a "simplified physics" chat. So, yes; I agree with the first paragraph of yours in full detail. My thesis would've been the following though and I will try not to over-complex it:

1. Every data represents a x,y,t point within a diagram. Thus it will perfectly modelize a 3D diagram (2D representation by t=z).
2. After the collection of a specific amount of data (ie: enough to make a "chaos") you can recognize a pattern that represents a stokes diagram of a 3D differential equation.
3. The pattern represents the entropic trajectory of the chaos that tends to form a Lorentz Tensor [or more].
4. The pluralism of Tensors in question depends of the respective Chaos(es) that each and everyone incorporates or vice versa. If you check the diagram from DJ that Armstrong has on his website there's a strong possibility you get EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
5. Reverse engineering the equation. Well. That's easy... as long as you know EXACTLY the deterministic chaos initial conditions (aka:Zero point).

From all the above, step 5 requires A LOT of discussion, mainly on the fact that the "initial conditions" are pretty subjective to significant moves (ie:a whale sale / buy).

Your turn

PS: Klee is a fellow Greek and I like his way of thinking. Besides, I never turn down anything without first giving it a good chance testing it. That's the way I function.

[TPTB_need_war]

PS: Klee is a fellow Greek and I like his way of thinking.

I tried the PnF crap and managed to lose $70,000+ in 2012 doubling down after getting stopped out on options. After that I started reading Armstrong and have lost any money on any investment since.

kLee was profiting quite well from following my timing calls on the Bitcoin price moves and now he decides to delete my posts that disagree with him. I guess he has to learn the hard way, such as when most of his coins got stolen for failing to do basic wallet security.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a stubborn Greek drink.

[macsga]

PS: Klee is a fellow Greek and I like his way of thinking.

I tried the PnF crap and managed to lose $70,000+ in 2012 doubling down after getting stopped out on options. After that I started reading Armstrong and have lost any money on any investment since.

kLee was profiting quite well from following my timing calls on the Bitcoin price moves and now he decides to delete my posts that disagree with him. I guess he has to learn the hard way, such as when most of his coins got stolen for failing to do basic wallet security.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a stubborn Greek drink.

Hahahaha... true!

[klee]

Watching and will try to participate! Very interesting thread!

[klee]

PS: Klee is a fellow Greek and I like his way of thinking.

I tried the PnF crap and managed to lose $70,000+ in 2012 doubling down after getting stopped out on options. After that I started reading Armstrong and have lost any money on any investment since.

kLee was profiting quite well from following my timing calls on the Bitcoin price moves and now he decides to delete my posts that disagree with him. I guess he has to learn the hard way, such as when most of his coins got stolen for failing to do basic wallet security.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a stubborn Greek drink.

Hehe, come here so you will drink with me, macsga and your Greek numerate fan club (I partially helped to form) tsipouro, ouzo, raki and fine red wine!