Author

Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 249. (Read 907227 times)

full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Lazy, cynical and insolent since 1968
But we are at least in agreement about something (HURRAH!) with regard to shorting: I don't participate in that market either, not so much for the reasons you stated but that it seems morally wrong to profit from the failure of a market (I remember the Soros-short inspired sterling crash of the eighties).

All this moral crap really annoys me. Shorting helps to prevent selloffs from being so severe, because shorts cover on the way down and provide buying demand.

Moralists always cause the opposite of what they portend to.

I agree with you but its one of those early messages that gets ingrained: "shorting is bad, mkay".
I'm not a fan of gambling, so it fits in with my schema.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Lazy, cynical and insolent since 1968
Before folks start quoting rules remember users under three months should limit themselves to three posts per 24 hours....that hasn't stopped Chessnut posting endless, one liners.  But I don't see anyone modding him either.

As always the BTC 'community' reveals its considerable patience with those with differing (or more intelligent) points of view.

The stuff AnonyMint posts is stimulating and considered, granted I struggle with much of it, but I'd rather have that than noobs posting unsubstantiated claims about market movement, being proved wrong and then posting a new claim -- what does that teach us other than some people are shameless.  
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
But we are at least in agreement about something (HURRAH!) with regard to shorting: I don't participate in that market either, not so much for the reasons you stated but that it seems morally wrong to profit from the failure of a market (I remember the Soros-short inspired sterling crash of the eighties).

All this moral crap really annoys me. Shorting helps to prevent selloffs from being so severe, because shorts cover on the way down and provide buying demand.

Moralists always cause the opposite of what they portend to.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Lazy, cynical and insolent since 1968
I like my TA with a dose of empiricism or at least plausible structural theory.  The *only* justification for treating the cross-over on bitcoinwisdom as a signal, as opposed to any other pair of moving averages, is the mere fact that it is the default on the 1 week chart on bitcoinwisdom.  Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a rational basis for a trading strategy.  We should ask the proprietor to randomly perturb the default periods on the moving averages.

What should we set the EMA to?
Sunny?
Optimistic?

I suggested randomization precisely to avoid goal-seeking.

Quote
How can it be unempirical.  It is two settings to judge a period.
Fine, change the settings until it draws a story that fits your point of view.  Highly scientific.

Exactly what I seek to avoid.  Fixed crossings are fine if you understand the limitations and are able to consistently maintain a suitable time-scale for all trading activity.  Whether  you would be profitable in a fixed EMA trading strategy in this particular instance, I cannot say, but it seems likely.  One can easily calibrate that likelihood empirically.  The scale of the opportunity costs implied by a strategy sufficiently disciplined to optimize that particular trade is quite vast, however.  The trading public will be bimodally distributed:  A small cohort will benefit more by paying relatively little heed to that weekly signal, without disregarding it; a much larger cohort will not be able to exercise the discipline to profit by it; the residual population is relatively smaller.

Quote
Quote
It's sad because people will trade on such a pathetic excuse for a rationalization, thinking it is driven by some deep and compelling model, when in fact they are just hanging their emotions on a scary picture.  It's sad because most of them will lose bitcoin as a result (perhaps not as a result of selling at that specific time, but almost certainly as a result of selling low and buying high), contributing to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few skilled but, in all too many cases, sociopathic persons.

Yes, it's really sad that people use the tools at their disposable to inform their decision making. 

It is a blunt tool, and ineptly used.  Hence my sadness.  Sharp tools, aptly used generally cheer me up.

Quote
Pretty much every indicator that shows we are having a bad time you dismiss --- each that predicts optimism you embrace: this seems highly unscientific.

But hey, I need strong medication Wink

I don't dismiss the relationship between ATH and the market - after all, it is only lows which create long opportunities.  I see little advantage in moaning about it.  Indeed, I have mostly foresworn shorting, not because it is unprofitable -- anything but!  Rather, because I cannot bear to profit from the criminal acts of my enemies.  I may still short a strong market, but only if there is no DDOS or other, more directly observable, massive embezzlement in progress.  Sadly this means that most of my historical short gains will no longer be available, and any future shorts will be taken at much higher risk.  If the market is sufficiently mature, I may short the next bear from top to bottom, because then it would not correlate with the designs of criminal actors, or contribute materially to their enrichment.

Trading gets more complicated when you stop ignoring the moral elements.


Just to follow up on that last remark first: I'm not sure I follow your syntax there -- I would say trading is more complicated when you acknowledge moral elements.

But we are at least in agreement about something (HURRAH!) with regard to shorting: I don't participate in that market either, not so much for the reasons you stated but that it seems morally wrong to profit from the failure of a market (I remember the Soros-short inspired sterling crash of the eighties).  It seems far too familiar to gambling as some poor sap recently commented on another thread.

Back to tools.  I have a number of cold chisels in my (real) tool box, they are quite blunt but are perfect for the jobs they are suited to.  Indeed, as many of my tools are blunt as ones that are sharp. You may be inept with a blunt tool but that doesn't mean everyone is.

If we were to randomize our EMA settings how would we find a grouping to settle on or make a consistent judgement over time?

AS I said in my previous post Risto has stated he's a big fan of the 4hour EMA....so a fine enough a tool to fund a mansion?

So, to summarize thus far you have dismissed the following TA indicators:

Bid/sum ratio
EMA
Blockchain tx numbers and volume (and a couple of other from Blockchain.info I can't recall)
Market cap

Perhaps it'd be quicker if you summarized what is pertinent in your opinion Smiley (other than tx addresses)

+++++++

ADD: to all the lovely users who PM'd me with such warm, charming messages with regard to my mention of burning coal.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf
http://theconversation.com/the-journal-that-gave-in-to-climate-deniers-intimidation-25085
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1134
It is too late because mining is already centralized and becoming more so every day.

Thus the protocol changes we need on the block chain can't be implemented.
The whole XCP OP_RETURN spectacle makes me doubt bitcoin will avoid its current path toward total centralized control
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5955613
The above is by luke-jr, who is one of the bitcoin core devs and also owns elgius which mines almost 10% of bitcoin

OP_RETURN was supposed to have 80 bytes. A whopping fractional increase (<.001%) in blockchain size, but to make sure XCP cant use it was changed to 40 bytes at the last minute.

theoretically bitcoin can continue on all sorts of wonderful exponential growth
in practice, when less than a dozen guys can control it, it becomes much more of a long shot

James
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
Risto made a 10 post per day limit just for you. Now you write whole pages in one post. Just start your own thread and share all your thoughts please. No one comes here to read you.

I am merely answering all the relevant posts that occurred while I was sleeping. What is the crime in that?

The great thing is that when you put me on ignore, all those replies combined into one post thus collapse into one line on your browser, so it is much more respectful of me than putting them in separate posts.

And once you put me on ignore, then you won't be bothered by greater opportunities, which is I think a perfect outcome that would please me very very very very very much.

SlipperySlope why did you delete your post saying that you put me on ignore? Please don't realize you were wrong.




The investors continue to invest in the middlemen because at the moment they see the ability expressed by Anonymint above to build the centralized offchain "banks" or clearing houses that will enable the transaction levels and the instantaneous "risk free" transactions necessary for widespread adoption.

Coinbase/bitpay/circle will become offchain repositories which offer instantaneous btc transfer between their members and their members fiat accounts.  They will make bitcoin easy to buy and easy to use...

[snip]


What you are saying *may* happen, I'm not saying it won't.  I'm saying it doesn't need to happen, and that there's a much better alternative outcome.

It is too late because mining is already centralized and becoming more so every day.

Thus the protocol changes we need on the block chain can't be implemented. Gavin spends his time at the CIA and CFR coordinating the fiat future for Bitcoin. No major changes in the protocol have ever happened, only small fixes. Even other important fixes haven't been done. Adam Back (the creator of Hashcash which Satoshi based Bitcoin on) enumerated many of these unfixed bugs.

[snip]

It may take decades for people to realize that trusting their money to third parties is no longer necessary and ill advised.  The implosions and thefts by third parties may not continue at the scale of mtgox, but they will continue.  If that's what we end up with, then bitcoin is just paypal reloaded.  It doesn't have to be that way.

I hope that bitcoin millionaires will start investing in things like Open Transactions, hardware wallets, autonomous services, etc so that people don't *have* to trust their money and business to third parties who ultimately have no direct interest in them.  That's the problem I thought we were trying to solve here.

Silicon Valley I'm sure will continue to do what they do, they can't do anything else.  What I'm talking about is a competitor to SV (at least in trust models).

Agreed! It is going to happen, but not on Bitcoin. Those who realize this early and get on the right bandwagon will be insanely wealthy.



Quote
4. Altcoins will proliferate the # of coins in the ecosystem.

Anonymint, is there a thread in which you discuss this aspect?

I don't want to disrupt the flow of conversation here but I am very curious about this.

Problem with Altcoins (note self-moderator closed the thread when he didn't like our refutations)

"Failure to Understand Bitcoin Could Cost Investors Billions" (Bitcoin's flaws)



On the subject of why $500 millionaires should not buy Bitcoin and why I disagree with Risto's claim that the only thing that matters is how many BTC you own...

1. A bitcoin is not an heirloom. The chances that it will hold its value long-term are very slim. Gold is a much better heirloom.

2. The 21 million supply limit is a lie. This WILL be violated and there are numerous ways it can happen. The most likely way is Bitcoin is obviously moving towards offchain storage and services. In fact, Bitcoin can't have instant transactions without offchain fractional reserves (technically the exchange has to be fractional for it to happen instantly). Also the government could today regulate the few pools who have 51% and the few ASIC miners who have large datacenters, and produce as many coins per coinbase as they wanted. Later when the masses are all using government regulated offchain Coinbase.com and Bitpay.com, etc, then government can do what ever it wants to the mining and the masses won't care.


So the debasement of bitcoins in the future is an interesting idea.  My question is, how do you see this playing out?  What kind of timeframe are we looking at in your opinion?

On that note, how would a cpu only coin like you suggest is needed prevent a fractional system from emerging?

Debasement by altcoins has already begun. This is another reason that Bitcoin's adoption curve is likely log-logistic and not linear (in log10) as Risto's famous chart assumed.




So the debasement of bitcoins in the future is an interesting idea.  My question is, how do you see this playing out?  What kind of timeframe are we looking at in your opinion?

On that note, how would a cpu only coin like you suggest is needed prevent a fractional system from emerging?


Can someone explain why we can't safely discount this?  

Whether people are using bitcoin notes or dollar notes doesn't seem (at first blush) to make much difference in the demand for actual bitcoin.  They are the same category - people who haven't adopted bitcoin.  Yes, there is a small amount of bitcoin backing the notes, but seems like we can safely discount the vast majority of the "adoption" because it didn't actually happen.  

People who only accept bitcoin (and not the notes), will just go on as if the notes don't exist. I would hope that the community that exists today would not be so stupid as to see the value in bitcoin to begin with, and then start accepting promises to pay.  

I guess you didn't read the upthread debate between Animorex and myself which stemmed from an assertion I made that once all your merchants take fiat (with a BTC facade) then they have no incentive to take BTC and not convert instantly to fiat.

Peter Thiel's Bitpay is a reverse takeover of Bitcoin and it is growing exponentially and at a much faster rate than Bitcoin adoption so it will soon engulf Bitcoin.




I believe it is because off chain transactions are going to have to become a reality if bitcoin is ever going to reach the speed/scaling required by mass adoption.  And off chain transactions, by nature, open up the possibility of fractional reserves.

Selectively choosing to only accept bitcoin does nothing to prevent this as no one would would know which coins were being fractionally traded off of.  Only "real" bitcoins could ever be broadcast over the actual bitcoin network, but this does nothing to the supply of bitcoins being moved around the market (off chain) in general.

And even if they had a list of addresses associated with off chain systems to "blacklist", that would lead us right back to the original problem.  That the blockchain itself can not handle the scaling required for mass adoption and must allow some sort of off chain system to exist.


That's years off and we haven't nearly exhausted all the possible optimizations to reduce the required bandwidth for a full node, much less an SPV node.  Not to mention the improvements in hardware between now and then.

Which requires more trust, running an SPV node or accepting off-chain transactions?  Hint: off-chain.

Full node resource requirements are not the crux of the issue. Rather it is the fact that there is no decentralized way to limit pool sizes. I solved this algorithmic problem.

This shows you are not technically astute. You may know a little bit about programming, but you don't even have all the relevant design issues properly organized in your head. So that should indicate to you that you should stop being obnoxiously boastful and condescending. Because ignorance is not impressive.

I speak because I know what I am talking about. Otherwise I ask, or say "this is my opinion".

I think it's silly that people are fully expecting fractional reserve.  If that happens, bitcoin has completely failed, IMO.

Exactly. So when are you going to wake up?

The whole reason we started issuing notes for gold centuries ago does not make any sense with bitcoin.  Bitcoin is already easy to carry and divisible.

Since you called me a "nutcase" upthread, I can speak frankly to you now...

Another example of your inadequate logic skills. I am estimating that I would never hire you as a programmer, because it appears I would spend more time correcting your logic errors than I would gain from your efforts.

The reason people prefer fractional reserves is primary because loans can't exist on a finite money supply.

The others reasons are safety. And Bitcoin has that in spades as many lose their wallets.

And other reasons for Bitcoin are only way to get fast transactions and micro payments. Etc..

This scalability issue is mostly bullshit FUD.

You are talking about the Block chain bloat scalability. Yes I agree it is not the big doom. However, there are other issues which are unresolvable in Bitcoin without offchain as mentioned above.

[snip]

That's not to say off-chain transactions don't have their place.  I'd be fine with, for example, an OpenTransactions issuer who proves his reserves and uses voting pools.  

Edit: just because the possibility of fractional reserve exists, doesn't mean we should accept it.

It is irrelevant to the final outcome as what you personally (or the idealist Bitcoiners) think should be accepted. It is the weaknesses in the protocol and what the masses want that matters.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 101
Be Here Now
Seriously. This one was pg 104 when I went to bed...I had questions...but gave up after 15 pages of all that.
sr. member
Activity: 798
Merit: 250
CurioInvest [IEO Live]
I know you want to shut me up because I have pointed out Bitcoin's weaknesses and pointed out that environmentalism is a moral fraud.


TBH nobody has time to read all your articles. I havent been. at least Rpietila graces this thread with simplicity.
just saying, cos that is BS. ^^ get over yourself.





+1 again. You assume people care about what you are saying much more than anyone does. Start your own thread! Risto rules this one...

Simplicity is for simpleton surrogates who are easily manipulated by Risto's incorrect (incomplete) summaries.

The summary that says all that matters is how many BTC you have, is what I am attacking right now. That summary is very wrong and it will cost you (and Risto) dearly.

Btw, while he tells you that, he is off buying altcoins and making profits (where do you think he recent cash came from? Im guessing he sold his Auroracoin at the top).

Little shocked that Risto has let AnonyMint take over his thread. Risto use to have more balls and a bigger delete hammer. Now he's just happy letting Mr. TinFoilHat dominate the thread and turn it into his own.

No longer read this thread. Shame.

Because Risto isn't stupid. He realizes that he must adjust to new information that opens his eyes. He realizes he must be able to defend his thesis against all valid logic, else he wouldn't be wealthy.

He deletes noise.

You are trying to turn this into a political contest instead of a factual and analytical contest. I don't think Risto is that dumb.

Risto made a 10 post per day limit just for you. Now you write whole pages in one post. Just start your own thread and share all your thoughts please. No one comes here to read you.
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
Simplicity is for simpleton surrogates who are easily manipulated by Risto's incorrect summaries.

BS again. It is just good manners and a show of understanding to summarise your arguments concisely. simplicity is always a desirable quality, though some dont have the skill to make simplicity.

Dont take me for a beggar of advise either. I am here to discuss, not to be told.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070
Little shocked that Risto has let AnonyMint take over his thread. Risto use to have more balls and a bigger delete hammer. Now he's just happy letting Mr. TinFoilHat dominate the thread and turn it into his own.

No longer read this thread. Shame.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
I know you want to shut me up because I have pointed out Bitcoin's weaknesses and pointed out that environmentalism is a moral fraud.


TBH nobody has time to read all your articles. I havent been. at least Rpietila graces this thread with simplicity.
just saying, cos that is BS. ^^ get over yourself.





+1 again. You assume people care about what you are saying much more than anyone does. Start your own thread! Risto rules this one...

Simplicity is for simpleton surrogates who are easily manipulated by Risto's incorrect (incomplete) summaries.

The summary that says all that matters is how many BTC you have, is what I am attacking right now. That summary is very wrong and it will cost you (and Risto) dearly.

Btw, while he tells you that, he is off buying altcoins and making profits (where do you think his recent cash came from? Im guessing he sold his Auroracoin at the top).

Little shocked that Risto has let AnonyMint take over his thread. Risto use to have more balls and a bigger delete hammer. Now he's just happy letting Mr. TinFoilHat dominate the thread and turn it into his own.

No longer read this thread. Shame.

Because Risto isn't stupid. He realizes that he must adjust to new information that opens his eyes. He realizes he must be able to defend his thesis against all valid logic, else he wouldn't be wealthy.

He deletes noise.

You are trying to turn this into a political contest instead of a factual and analytical contest. I don't think Risto is that dumb.

You are trying to use political pressure to make Risto feel guilty if you don't read his thread. Who cares? Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out you whiner. Surely you can skip the posts you don't want to read. Rather you are trying to censor facts that you don't want others to read.


Simplicity is for simpleton surrogates who are easily manipulated by Risto's incorrect summaries.

BS again. It is just good manners and a show of understanding to summarise your arguments concisely. simplicity is always a desirable quality, though some dont have the skill to make simplicity.

Dont take me for a beggar of advise either. I am here to discuss, not to be told.

I did summarize. It is deep stuff. It is not for simpletons. You need an attention span more than a 5 year old.

Then discuss. Present your factual counter-argument.
sr. member
Activity: 798
Merit: 250
CurioInvest [IEO Live]
I know you want to shut me up because I have pointed out Bitcoin's weaknesses and pointed out that environmentalism is a moral fraud.


TBH nobody has time to read all your articles. I havent been. at least Rpietila graces this thread with simplicity.
just saying, cos that is BS. ^^ get over yourself.





+1 again. You assume people care about what you are saying much more than anyone does. Start your own thread! Risto rules this one...
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
I know you want to shut me up because I have pointed out Bitcoin's weaknesses and pointed out that environmentalism is a moral fraud.


TBH nobody has time to read all your articles. I havent been. at least Rpietila graces this thread with simplicity.
just saying, cos that is BS. ^^ get over yourself.



hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
every second post is Anonymint. and it's not on subject either. Maybe you should create you own thread or follow your own advise Anonymint.

+1

While I was sleeping there were many posts where I did not post, thus your claim is erroneous. I am responding now, that is why my posts are grouped closely together.

I am responding to posts made by others and I am allowed 10 posts per day.

And FA is relevant to TA because TA is otherwise accurate roughly 50% of the time.  Undecided

I know you want to shut me up because I have pointed out Bitcoin's weaknesses and pointed out that environmentalism is a moral fraud.

Hiding from the facts won't help you. It can only hurt you.

We also have to remember that since quite recently, lots of investment money is going to angel investment rather than bitcoin itself directly. Big investors see the possibility of getting higher returns than bitcoin in launching a successful bitcoin service.

This is because investors just don't get it.

The future is software, not some rent-seeking paid service.  People will increasingly do business directly, with the help of software they control.  Middlemen are increasingly being cut out.  And yet these investors continue to invest in middlemen.

The way to get to this future is not through investment in making bitcoin exactly like the existing financial world.  

Agreed. But Bitcoin is clearly headed to being a part of the existing fiat regime.

A corporation's service cannot compete with an community-produced autonomous service.  You know why?  Because autonomous software doesn't need to profit.  It works for cost.

Nonsense. Miners mine for profit and return security of the network in exchange.

Socialism is always failure.

Autonomous protocols are valuable because they enable diversity and diversity is fitness and fitness is prosperity and resilience.

The way to this future is to buy bitcoin, and then after a few years use some of the proceeds to develop software that serves people, not some corporation.  That makes bitcoin even more desirable, and that's how get paid for your effort.

The fact that this has not happened at all yet is one of my greatest disappointments.  Stop thinking that corporations and VC funding are the answer to everything.  We already have enough bitcoin millionaires to begin this revolution but I don't know of any who are going this route.

That is just socialist bather nonsense.




Allowing myself one more OT comment, simply because I participated in a discussion of this topic earlier in this thread:

This is also the reason that these nutcase theories that bitcoin was invented by government to track people, is just that, a nutcase conspiracy theory.  The government is cracking down on exchanges and arresting people like Charlie Shrem, that is not the behavior of someone who wants it to be widely adopted.  They want to limit it.  They don't want you to have it because it hurts them and benefits you.

[snip]

Yours is a conspiracy theory beyond credibility:  The idea that "the government" is the expression of some malign, monolithic will.  It's a demon of imagination.  The evils of government stem from other, more fundamental, sources.

Astute.

[snip]

I don't personally think that bitcoin was designed by deep state factions, although I allow the distinct possibility.  The scale of the foresight required to craft that strategy beggars belief, but when enough plans are made, some will be surprisingly successful, in all likelihood.  The reason for my skepticism is not dissimilar from your own:  Such a project would almost certainly involve a committee, and that would essentially doom it.

Black budget think tanks are designed not to operate by committee. The elite recognize what works and doesn't work. Please see this:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/02/the-age-of-civil-unrest-part-ii/

My allowance is the converse:  A genius actor could be sponsored by a well-heeled patron (or in the most unlikely case, be capable of successful self-sponsorship) within the deep state to play the Nakamoto role no less (or little less) than could one outside the deep state.  The reason that the allowance is small is that the population from which the deep state selects is smaller than the population which is denied it.

Indeed the $4 trillion unaccounted Black Budget of the USA.



Even if some rich people don't know what bitcoin is, there are plenty of Silicon Valley billionaires that do. What about them? Surely they are not waiting for some investment expert to explain the whys and hows

They are investing in offchain services such as Bitpay and Coinbase, thus converting Bitcoin into a mainstream fiat regime and away from our original ideals.
sr. member
Activity: 798
Merit: 250
CurioInvest [IEO Live]
every second post is Anonymint. and it's not on subject either. Maybe you should create you own thread or follow your own advise Anonymint.

+1
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
every second post is Anonymint. and it's not on subject either. Maybe you should create you own thread or follow your own advise Anonymint.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
I don't know how electricity is priced in your place of residency, but in mine, the price of electricity for home users is mostly fixed and can change once or twice a year only. It will be difficult to adjust it if we see another x100 in bitcoin price within a year or two. If the client is a company it is "worst" because a lot of them have long term contracts with fixed prices.

If price doesn't increase consumers break down the doors of the electric company and City Hall. Price will increase damn fast when people don't have electricity. I am here in Davao, Mindanao and we are having rotating brownouts. The people and businesses are ready to strangle the necks of the politicians and so yes the price has risen and the new coal powerplants are being built (200MW to come online next year and more coming).

I agree price may not rise if the damn socialists who want subsidies are in control.

I agree that a higher price (of electricity) could solve the problem in the long term (5+ years). In the short term I except that the most polluting plants will just run at maximum capacity to deliver the required power.

Man-made climate and global environmental change is the most irrational thought a person could have. Start here on the definition of the scientific method.

2. That article assumes the genre and capital cost of the mining equipment is irrelevant. Thus with cpu-only mining, this problem will be much improved (...)

Yes it is (irrelevant). No it won't (be improved). Read the OP.

I assume you are referring to this point:

Hypothesis :
1. Miners are rational actors. Therefore once they have bought a mining rig, they will not stop it unless the cost of running it is higher than the price of the mined bitcoins. However if the price drops or if the difficulty grows too high they should stop mining.

You must have flunked Economics 101 because you forgot opportunity cost.

They can sell the hardware. Factor that in and you see my point was relevant.

Obviously for ASICs you are correct, but general purpose computers you would not be. That is another reason a cpu-only coin is needed.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
According to MWI of QM (Everett's)...

Not to introduce a flame-fest, but I thought it worth mentioning a personal view which is somewhat innovative:  I consider MWI to be both true and the only interpretation consistent with Christianity, where the latter is understood to include Biblical doctrine.  I'm only throwing that out because the idea has been mooted that Newtonian time is implied by Biblical doctrine, and the holders of that view may not be aware that there is a line of reasoning with contradictory effect.

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521

Well I have to disagree.

Even the past is not definite. How do you prove what happened in the past? It is an argument about whose memory is accurate, yet each of us have a different aliasing error in our sampling (because no one samples the entire universe).

[snip]

anyway yeah I considered that, I rejected it (As per above post) I agree a memory of what happened can be subject to probabilistic outcomes, but it doesn't make sense that everything else seems to be made up of stuff between zero and one, but somehow the future and past are actually the same. They need an opposite. Clyde needs his bonnie.

They are opposing in that the past is inductive and the future is co-inductive. Also they are opposing in that there is not one past and one future, thus really they don't exist as aggregated entities (thus can't oppose each other).

Humans have a difficult time accepting diversity, because they can't know it all. Thus we erroneously gravitate towards absolute bullshit such as man-made climate change, as if one climate even exists.
Jump to: