No it doesn't, because it's never that simplistic. The only reason you think it would work is because you haven't actually really researched it at all. Pseudo-intellectualism at it's finest.

stock markets don't have patterns? i believe the majority of it's fluctuations can be identified ahead of time using simple to complex mathematics, maybe u didnt watch the movie? (obv jk, its a movie...)

identifying / judging me with low grade semantics is no better than i for assuming something is possible without proper research... but i never made that claim, i just thought it.

but more so, people who are "pseudo-intellectuals" will claim to know very much about the subject and/or attempt to use big words which tend to confuse the less informed into giving their money or fg.

i have neither claimed to know very much about this subject, and have stated so in ur quote and my previous posts.

i feel it further to be an oxymoron for someone like urself to use the word psedo-intellectual against me, without actually knowing its meaning, and just trying to use big words and be "right"... without actually saying anything at all.

This post was edited by VPN on Oct 1 2013 11:14am

The post where you stated that you didn't know enough about the subject:



Note that you didn't say "I don't really know what I'm talking about and just had a thought". You said that his research was more research than you did. Watching Pi is not research, this is where the "pseudo-intellectual" crack came from. You are saying a lot of words that sound good
but depend on a set of circumstances that are neither practical nor reasonable.



Like this. There are in fact people who do quantitative analysis of the stock market and I certainly wouldn't call the statistical models they develop to be "simple" and many of them are actually not that accurate as to be able to "tell the future" and are more of a guideline as to when to buy/sell. There have been giant leaps in the technology though.

i admitted that he had researched it more than i, because obviously if i said i dont know what im talking about, that would be a lie, i do in fact know what im asking, and what im talking about, but not to the detail that i understand how a (example) pencil is made... however i could not make it without extensive research (or be in the business like the replied was, he compiles C++ and ports for a living)... but that the idea was still possible regardless of his amount of research, and* by his terms it was impossible.
and what i was talking about was that the movie pi (which focuses on stock market patterns) had a possibility to have some truths to it - based on a 2 models producing the same "random" numbers given algorithms.

its ok that u chose the wrong adj to describe me, just remember what it actually represents before becoming an oxy-moron.

This post was edited by VPN on Oct 1 2013 12:01pm

I absolutely know what "pseudo-intellectual" means. You apparently don't know what oxymoron means, though.

edit: It's also pretty unnecessary to PM me with each and every reply you make to me. That's not how forums are supposed to work.

This post was edited by rockonkenshin on Oct 1 2013 12:11pm

i pmd u so u didnt have to post about non relevant things here... such as semantics

The whole idea is barking up the wrong tree. We do not live in a deterministic universe. And even if we did, because of the extremely chaotic nature of most systems, combined with the measurement problem, leaves you in a situation where it is impossible to make good predictions for most systems even if you know the exact evolution laws for the system.

This post was edited by Azrad on Oct 1 2013 01:17pm

quantum physics i am totally immersed into... but i do believe there is a median between deterministic and free will.
and unf thats one conversation that leads to much "pseudo-intellectualism".

quantumly we are a digital universe that relies on blocks of measurements to which reality can be realized, aka probability waves that are all played out when one cannot be determined from the other, aka its an intelligent mathematical (some may say digital) efficient world that doesnt bother calculating things we cannot measure or determine, and instead plays them all out in a probability wave, and this only occurs at individual particle levels (as small as we can get).

this was proven by the advanced double slit test known as the delayed quantum choice eraser, which knocked einstein's hidden variable to dust.
another great quantum example is that box that reads probability waves of a particle outside of its own boundaries, without dmg to the box, cant remember the guys name.

http://youtu.be/sfeoE1arF0I

This post was edited by VPN on Oct 1 2013 01:36pm

you seriously have no fucking idea what you're talking about. to call your posts pseudo-intellectualism is being way too generous.

you're just spewing garbage.

This post was edited by irimi on Oct 1 2013 01:32pm

people usually get mad when they cant or dont understand something, feel free to study up on quantum physics