Discussion of article "The price movement model and its main provisions (Part 2): Probabilistic price field evolution equation and the occurrence of the observed random walk" - page 12
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
A programmer must programme.
I was once told by the chief accountant of a large enterprise about a programmer servicing 1C, adjusting the basic version to the needs of the enterprise.
Due to his poor knowledge of accounting principles, peculiarities of double entry, account allocation, etc., the programme was constantly experiencing bugs, which led to failures in the work of all structures - accounting, commercial department, production.
A programmer, in my understanding, should know the object he works with as much as possible - not only to be able to communicate with the machine, but also to see the general goals of working on the code. in the case of accounting - to ensure the connection of all economic and financial operations, in the case of trading - the ability to work out any strategy with the problem statement, the choice of algorithms and testing in the tester.
General self-development from reading additional literature and watching informative videos has never hurt anyone.
I will work up the list of literature and send it to you.
To understand the state of theoretical physics and other science at the moment I recommend the resource kniganews.org, in particular, here is an interesting article:
https://kniganews.org/2022/07/14/synchronicity/
Fedoseev's logic problems were noticed a few years ago, nothing has changed since then. This is the case with most psychologists by vocation or conviction 🙂
We are pea grains.
In the age of victorious nominalism, diamatism has long since rested on the dustbin of history in company with other fabrications of realism.
The concept of the One has been studied thoroughly in antiquity, starting with Xenophanes of Colophon and continuing with Parmenides, Plato, Plotinus, and so on. The main conclusion is that the One can be defined only apophatically, i.e. by enumerating what it is not. Constructive definition for it is fundamentally impossible and no scientific concepts are inapplicable to it in principle.
In your case, the One is simply everything incomprehensible to you, piled in one heap. There is only one way to clear this heap, which I have already suggested to you - first physics and only then metaphysics.
Why don't you start by reading Plato, Yamvlich, Numenius, Heraclitus, Hermes Trismegistus, if not in the original, then at least in a brief translation? Take an interest in ancient Indian philosophy.
Do you know anything else from physics except F = ma?
In the age of victorious nominalism, diamatism has long since rested on the dustbin of history in company with other fabrications of realism.
The concept of the One has been studied thoroughly in antiquity, starting with Xenophanes of Colophon and continuing with Parmenides, Plato, Plotinus, and so on. The main conclusion is that the One can be defined only apophatically, i.e. by enumerating what it is not. Constructive definition for it is fundamentally impossible and no scientific concepts are inapplicable to it in principle.
In your case, the One is simply everything incomprehensible to you, piled in one heap. To rake this heap there is only one way, which I already offered you - first physics and only then metaphysics.
Why don't you start by reading Plato, Iamvlichus, Numenius, Heraclitus, Hermes Trismegistus, if not in the original, at least in a short translation? Take an interest in ancient Indian philosophy.
Do you know anything else from physics except F = ma?
Plato makes sense to read up to the "State" inclusive, and the later - so bad. From Heraclitus, unfortunately, there are only a few dozen quotations and anecdotes left. Hermes is a fictional character with medieval texts attributed to him. The Neoplatonic and Neopythagorean texts are deeply secondary to their great predecessors and are of interest only to historians.
I know enough about physics to immediately identify your mixture of quasi-scientific nonsense with pseudo-philosophical nonsense.
Please don't talk nonsense or take it elsewhere.
here's an interesting article:
///
This is a very sore subject lately..... Now some people are getting sick even from the collective unconscious, and you give links to an article about synchoronism.
There is also a scientific version that the brain arose in the process of evolution for the purposes of this very evolution, i.e. for survival and continuation of the species. No other purposes were pursued in terms of cognition of the universum :) The emergence of any philosophical concepts is a by-product, not a goal, and is dictated by biological desires. Accordingly, juggling philosophies depending on the situation is a normal technique if it leads the organism to the goal.
Fortunately (or unfortunately) evolutionary pressure is constantly decreasing - organisms with any ideas about anything have long ago managed to pass on their genes to offspring).
But ordinary juggling with objects is impossible if it contradicts the laws of gravity, and juggling with philosophies - if it contradicts the laws of logic) As we can see, the character, who is already confused in his postulates, hopes for some "programmers" who should lead him out of the deadlock).
This is a very sore subject lately..... Now some people are getting sick even from the collective unconscious, and you give links to an article about synchoronism.
So-called "synchronicity" is just one of the evidences that the concepts of combinatorics and probability are not embedded in our human intuition. If we place cases of miraculous coincidences in a series of similar events where coincidences did not occur, then all miracles will be dispelled like "a face on Mars" once was.
So-called "synchronicity" is just one piece of evidence that the concepts of combinatorics and probability are not embedded in our human intuition. If we place cases of miraculous coincidences in a series of similar events where coincidences did not occur, then all miracles will be dispelled like "a face on Mars" once was.
The cats just don't like you
It's just that you cats don't like you
Who do they love? At most, tolerated as a source of food, warmth and soothing massage)