Forums  > Books & Papers  > The Blank Swan: The End of Probability by Elie Ayache  
     
Page 2 of 29Goto to page: 1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29 Prev Next
Display using:  

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-11 10:21
>Are the 500 pages written in the same style?
Absolutely. Precision of language is the key to my thought.

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

pj


Total Posts: 3307
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2010-08-11 10:39
Ok, numbersix

You argue that
Probability is a number
Price is not a probability

Therefore
Price is not a number.
(Duh).

What are your precise definitions?

вакансия "Программист Психологической службы" -але! у нас ошибко! не работает бля-бля-бля -вы хотите об этом поговорить?

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-11 13:08
See the attached paper. My precise definitions are precisely MY definitions. Getting acquainted with my language is a matter of radical translation (following Quine).

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

nnja


Total Posts: 236
Joined: Jul 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-11 14:27
How is the proposed view any different than:

1. The price is the value that a buyer and seller will transact at.
2. Buyers and sellers use various tools, including probability, statistics, theories of dynamic replication, etc. to determine the price that they will bid/offer (enter the market) at. But the tools don't set the price because they are right, but they may be right on the occasion that they set the price.

I admit that I did not peruse the paper in detail, but it seems like you could get to the primacy of prices over theory with pragmatism. After all, there is practical effect to a transaction, namely the two parties walk away from the transaction with something different than they had before. And then you could categorize all the analyses done before as merely tools, and then pick your favorite philosophy of science to address strengths/limitations/etc. of those tools (or you could treat them like any other narrative, if you are so inclined).

So I think that I agree with where you end up (if I understand you correctly), but it seems like the theory spends a lot of effort getting out of the cul-de-sac of postmodernism that it didn't have to go down in the first place; after all, I'm not sure that there is a large need to correct the misconceptions of deconstructionist financial engineers. Of course, I don't work at Calyon or SocGen so maybe there are more of them than I am aware of :)

I don't always test code, but when I do, I prefer it to be in production.

pj


Total Posts: 3307
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2010-08-11 14:35
So, was the syllogism right?

Did you redefine the logic as well?

вакансия "Программист Психологической службы" -але! у нас ошибко! не работает бля-бля-бля -вы хотите об этом поговорить?

macrotrader


Total Posts: 353
Joined: May 2009
 
Posted: 2010-08-11 15:31
.

"he, who has the power over the ingenius, is he not more ingenius than the ingenius?" Karl Marx

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-11 23:58
nnja, thank for your comments.
I completely agree about the pragmatist view of markets and prices, and of probability theory as merely a tool. This would be the philosophy of science of finance (and of derivative pricing, etc.)

My book, however, is a book of metaphysics, not a book of methodology of finance. My purpose is not to explain how prices (according to their common conception) come about. I seek to create concepts from scratch, or to show that some concepts are contingent, therefore dispensable and replaceable.

For instance, I argue that probability, as concept, can be replaced. My argument is not addressed to financial engineers, or to scientists (who will, no doubt, argue with me forever about price and probability without ever leaving their plane of reference), but to philosophers of probability and to metaphysicians. The news that I am breaking to them is that there is a new metaphysical category, which I call the 'market' or 'price', that should replace probability in matters relating to contingency.

In my metaphysical reconstruction, contingency is the primary category. Its proper medium is writing, not possibility or probability. As writing, its only place is the exchange place and price is its translation.

In the last part of the book, I even argue that contingency (infinitely differentiating) is separated for the statist view of possibility and fixed states of the world (which I call 'debt') by the operator of conversion.

As debt is converted into the contingent claim by the conversion, probability, which is the reflection of debt, is converted into price and the morbid circle of debt (or the bond, binding creditor and debtor) is converted into the exchange place, or the market.

Notice how all this discourse, which may strike one as pure abstraction, is foreign to any preconceived (or 'vulgar') view of what a market is, or what a price is. What I call 'market' or 'price' (by way of a redefinition) are precisely the concepts that I need and properly generate in order to distance myself from possibility and probability.

Notice that the last part of the book is called the 'genesis of the market'. It certainly is not the 'real', or empirical, or historical genesis of the market that I am talking about here.

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

athletico


Total Posts: 951
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 02:30

>> My book, however, is a book of metaphysics, not a book of methodology of finance.

So I'll be able to find this book at my local bookseller in the Philosophy section, and not Econ/Finance?


numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 06:14
Check both sections. I hope that, over time, even booksellers will understand that finance and philosophy are not so impermeable to each other (do you agree?).

In the meantime, nothing stops you from finding the book in finance and reading it in philosophy. This is definitely part of my goal.

I will reach my goal fully, however, when the people on the other side of the boundary, i.e. the hardcore philosophers, start learning what a contingent claim is and what the market is. I am personally working on that.

(A short answer to your question would have been, though, that usually great books find their own readers, and not the other way round.)

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

gconvex


Total Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 2010
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 09:47
"even booksellers will understand": So the book-market falls outside of your philosophical jokeadigm?

I would agree that interpreting "financial markets" as an elaborate language game may be amusing... like masturbating in a vacuum. Bonne chance!

Who are the "hardcore philosophers" (you are hoping to enlighten)?



A properly civilizing task is to revisit old commonplace things.

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 10:03
>Who are the "hardcore philosophers"?
Since when are you interested?
These are the porn kings of the aforementioned vacuum, pardi!

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

gconvex


Total Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 2010
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 13:06
I'm interested to see if there is anything serious about what you are posting. If you are working on getting "hardcore philosophers" to understand contingent claims (I'm sure they will be very grateful) then why not let us know who they are? Daniel Dennett?

On a more serious note, try reading Hacker and Bennett substituting "Market" for "Brain".

A properly civilizing task is to revisit old commonplace things.

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 13:43
>I'm interested to see if there is anything serious about what you are posting.
Sokal has done the greatest disservice to the community of readers (who, I agree, are not all supposed to be born-philosophers) by cornering them into a spot where their only worry has become to determine whether something that sounds unusual is a 'Sokal-type' joke or not, instead of reading the material for what it is and of engaging with its thought.

So, sorry, no, I do not wish to make things easier for you and be the one to tell you whether there is anything serious about what I post.

(Re my hardcore philosophers, search the words 'speculative realism'. Thank you for the Hacker and Bennett reference. Indeed a philosophical breakthrough can sometimes come from substituting a word for another. As concerns my philosophy, what should be substituted is 'market' for 'thought'.)

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

DocAdam7


Total Posts: 153
Joined: Nov 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 13:58
>So, sorry, no, I do not wish to make things easier for you and be the one to tell you whether there is anything serious about what I post.

In other words, you're full of it.

That which counts cannot always be counted. That which can be counted does not always count.

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 14:12
>In other words, you're full of it.
Read my book, my friend, if you are after content.
The greatest disservice this empty conversation is doing to me (and to you) is to make you forget that I have written a very difficult book.

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

filthy


Total Posts: 1257
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 14:31

"The greatest disservice this empty conversation is doing to me (and to you) is to make you forget that I have written a very difficult book. "

but that isn't the problem of this conversation. the problem is that the book is indeed dificult. but is this due to the difficulty of the concepts or the style of presentation? i've read relativistic field theory papers that were easier to understand.

i think you have done the ideas a dis-service by writing in this style. if this is intended as some sort of poetry then it doesn't matter, but if you are trying to present information then why write like this?

it wasn't sokal that was the problem. it was those he was parodying


"Game's the same, just got more fierce"

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 14:38
I see no gap and no distinction between a thought and its writing style. It is the same material to me. So the answer, in my case, must be the difficulty of the thought. I couldn't have written it otherwise, and by the way, I think poetry is more difficult than philosophy, that is, more thoughtful. It doesn't lie on the side (parasitically, as it were), but above. I sincerely do hope you're not afraid of the difficulty. Perhaps you should try and read my book over again. (And, to tell you the truth, Sokal did not understand those he was parodying; to write a true parody, like Proust did in his days, you must understand your 'victim' even better that she does herself.)

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

gconvex


Total Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 2010
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 15:02

Your book is hard because you are unable to communicate a simple observation which others have made before. It's OK to be a narcissist (your style reminds me of Strindberg's melodramatic, sickening self-portrait photographs), but you must have something to show for it.

Your babble brings into mind the friendly words of a policeman. I was walking home, someone had driven a car into a tree and people were going to have a look:

"It's a car crash, move along, there's nothing to see, don't drink and drive. Enjoy your day, don't waste your sunny day here!"

---

Numbersix (Elie Ayache?) wrote (Search Wi***t for similar gems of self-congratulation / confusion!):

"To Deleuze, clarity, or the excess of light, can only confuse things. Obscure things, by contrast, are more readily distinct. To a true thinker's eyes, that is.
I am proud to say that the territory I am exploring is obscure indeed. I am the first to illuminate it and I would be happy to see others follow in my steps. I have no patience, however, for kids who are afraid of the dark."



A properly civilizing task is to revisit old commonplace things.

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 15:16
>Your book is hard because you are unable to communicate a simple observation which others have made before.
Very interesting. Do you know so after reading my book, or do you just suppose so?

I am not a narcissist. It is just that my book (like any original work by an original author) is an invitation into the unknown, into my thought.

As Deleuze has said, encountering an original thought is an act of utter violence, something like the car crash you describe.

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

pj


Total Posts: 3307
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 15:22
> I see no gap and no distinction between a
>thought and its writing style.

That's interesting. Did you ever hear of people thinking
not in words?

(mathematicians, for example)

вакансия "Программист Психологической службы" -але! у нас ошибко! не работает бля-бля-бля -вы хотите об этом поговорить?

Cheng


Total Posts: 2803
Joined: Feb 2005
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 15:23
Mkay, I had some time lately (ie no intention to do proper work) and read about three quarters of the paper you posted. I have to say that some Stochastic Analysis papers dissecting the Fokker-Planck equations are easier to wrap one's head around. This stuff is complex and demanding but finally you get some feeling about what the author wants to say. I don't have this feeling from your paper so far.

"Inter Deum Et Diabolum Semper Musica Est"

Cheng


Total Posts: 2803
Joined: Feb 2005
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 15:24
That's interesting. Did you ever hear of people thinking
not in words?


Regarding math I prefer thinking in pictures Cool. No pun intented.

"Inter Deum Et Diabolum Semper Musica Est"

macrotrader


Total Posts: 353
Joined: May 2009
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 15:33
>> I think poetry is more difficult than philosophy, that is, more thoughtful. It doesn't lie on the side (parasitically, as it were), but above. I sincerely do hope you're not afraid of the difficulty.

So you believe that a nonsensical sentence is more "difficult" to understand than a meaningful sentence? Hegel is difficult to read because it is nonsense. Something which is easy to write and hard to understand falls into the category of gibberish. How can one distinguish between real philosophy and pomo?

"he, who has the power over the ingenius, is he not more ingenius than the ingenius?" Karl Marx

gconvex


Total Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 2010
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 15:46
Come on, I thought this was settled! Stop feeding his ego. This guy is a (per)version of Sokal. The only difference is that he's not doing it on purpose / doesn't realise that he's died in a car-crash.

Sokal says (don't look far, it's on Wikipedia):

"If the texts seem incomprehensible, it is for the excellent reason that they mean precisely nothing."

There you go. That's all we need to know. We all agree that the text reads like gibberish and the reason is that it is void of any insight.

A properly civilizing task is to revisit old commonplace things.

DocAdam7


Total Posts: 153
Joined: Nov 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 16:06
>I see no gap and no distinction between a thought and its writing style. It is the same material to me.

I have a problem with this. The final goal of insight is to distill the substance. Your work is not insightful because nobody cares about the nuances of how your mind wanders (or maybe some do). What we care about is the clarity of the idea when it reaches its destination. You don't ever seem to reach destinations, or you attempt to describe your destination by giving your readers a play-by-play of your travels over the two years it took getting there. We don't want to spend our lives analyzing your thoughts and figuring you out. There's genius in simplicity.

That which counts cannot always be counted. That which can be counted does not always count.
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 2 of 29Goto to page: 1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29 Prev Next