Forums  > Books & Papers  > The Blank Swan: The End of Probability by Elie Ayache  
     
Page 3 of 29Goto to page: 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 28, 29 Prev Next
Display using:  

gconvex


Total Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 2010
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 16:26
DocAdam hits the nail on the head.

Imagine someone claimed to have solved the Riemann hypothesis (e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Branges_de_Bourcia) but was unable to communicate it in a way that anyone else could understand. As long as the proof cannot be communicated, it is not a proof - just symbols on a piece of paper. If it is incomprehensible, it is wrong - by definition.

A properly civilizing task is to revisit old commonplace things.

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 16:29
>doesn't realise that he's died in a car-crash.
Indeed. I will settle for this as the definition of the eternity of my thought. Probably I should leave you all behind, among the hopeless wreckage.

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

ClopeMan


Total Posts: 328
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 16:34
"There's genius in simplicity"

So true. I would add that complex and abstract constructions of the mind too often serve the self satisfaction of one's intellectual vanity. If you're bright enough you might even end up convincing ppl of your genius (irrespective of the content of the work), and hence of being somewhat closer to deep insights than others. Human fragility at it's best.

numbersix, whatever you are trying to do here, i do not think you are approaching the right crowd to spread your ideas here (whether they're good or not, i personally could not care less); this is a forum packed with practically oriented minds, smart yet *empirically oriented*. Good luck in your quest.




twisted objective mind

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 16:40
And it all of sudden strikes me that, like the majority of scientists, you are, deep down, hopeless believers in determinism; or perhaps, your only claim to the unexpected is to be risk managers.

How much, by contrast, as true traders of the non-linear, would you price the odds that my thought will ultimately prevail? (But I forget that you only care to read books linearly and you think that all that books do is convey 'information'.)

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

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 16:46
>numbersix, whatever you are trying to do here, i do not think you are approaching the right crowd to spread your ideas here.
Thank you for the helping hand, ClopeMan. Strange as it may seem, this crowd strikes me as willing to learn, nevertheless. Note that I haven't experienced such a discussion of my book on W****tt (to only cite this other 'empirically oriented' crowd).

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 16:48
We are hopeless believers putting ideas out there for debate on their merits. We price the value of our time too highly to decipher your drivel to get at your ideas.

By the way, I love this - "you think that all that books do is convey 'information'"

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 17:01
>We are hopeless believers putting ideas out there for debate on their merits.
And not a single one of you was able to pull a single 'idea' of my book and debate it explicitly. All you were able to discuss was the style, and the deep, roaring sound of the philosophy threat.

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 17:04
I think you should read Lindley's "Understanding Uncertainty" which probably contains most of the ideas you are failing to articulate.

"...there is almost nothing to say what your beliefs should be; only how they should fit together, or cohere. Cromwell’s rule is a slight exception, but all it does is to exclude values 0 and 1 in most circumstances, because their use can lead to what many people consider unsatisfactory results. As an example of such a result, consider the case of a person who holds a view F with probability 1. Then coherence says that it is no use having a debate with them because nothing will change their mind..."

Your so called end-of-probability is just the end of classical statistics and the idea of subjective probabilities is well discussed in the enormous Bayesian literature.

A properly civilizing task is to revisit old commonplace things.

DocAdam7


Total Posts: 153
Joined: Nov 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 17:05
>and the deep, roaring sound of the philosophy threat.

That's awesome. I actually like you - you remind me of a friend of mine who suffers from constant verbal diarrhea but provides endless entertainment.

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

Scotty


Total Posts: 721
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 17:59

Can you guys cut your abuse please.

For me, as one of those practical guys, I don't feel that the existing Finance theory has got it all nailed and I'm interested to get alternative ideas.

gconvex - you have a very high ratio of negative to useful posts - I think you may be on the wrong forum.


“Whatever you do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius and power and magic in it.”

nnja


Total Posts: 236
Joined: Jul 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 18:10
OK, I'll bite. I'm not a radical materialist but I play one at work. The chaos of reality is mediated through our senses, augmented by our tools. But that is all we've got. There is no "behind" the mediation that can be discussed. Thus, you can use art to "discuss" the chaos or you can use language to give us a model to overlay in front of our mediated reality. If you are giving us art, then de gustibus non est disputandem, and in a Books & Papers category the ideas that you present should be more welcomed than they have. If you are giving us another model, then the questions regarding implementation (difficult to read) are absolutely valid.

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

gconvex


Total Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 2010
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 18:21
That's how we all learn, through constructive criticism. No-one has objected to it so far and I haven't criticised you. You have a lovely dog.

A properly civilizing task is to revisit old commonplace things.

pj


Total Posts: 3305
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 18:35
MKay I'll stick my
head out.

The "syllogism" I mentioned above
wasn't explicit enough?

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: 2010-08-12 19:26
Thank you all.
I will take a break for the day; and will resume my constructive posting tomorrow. In the meantime, try and engage with Meillassoux, Brassier, Deleuze and Badiou. Like I say in the post from the W****tt forum that one of you was so kind to bring forth, if my discourse is gibberish then theirs should be too, no?

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 20:33
Bravo, that is by far the best contribution of the day.

Anyway, the conclusion: Bayesian "philosophy" in a Finance context with dubious style and a bit of re-interpreted French new-wave Philosophy.

A properly civilizing task is to revisit old commonplace things.

macrotrader


Total Posts: 353
Joined: May 2009
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 21:56
>> In the meantime, try and engage with Meillassoux, Brassier, Deleuze and Badiou.

What about Ramsey, Keynes and Finetti? Keynes wrote a book on probability theory. It was critized by Ramsey and he gave up on his attempts and switched to economics. Finetti is famous for a theorem which shows that violating the axioms of probability is irrational, because if the person would bet on outcomes contrary to the axiome there would be the possibility of arbitrage. He defined probability as some value for a belief such that the person would accept betting on the outcome (subjective probability aka Bayesian probability). Ramsey developed the concept of subjective probability independently. Keynes tried, but didn't succeed. I found no reference to any of these names in the book (using the preview of amazon.).

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

nnja


Total Posts: 236
Joined: Jul 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-12 21:57
Anyway, the conclusion: Bayesian "philosophy" in a Finance context with dubious style and a bit of re-interpreted French new-wave Philosophy.

I'm not sure about that. While I agree the illustration (K1, K2 pay off if heads/tails, respectively) has a (family? - pun intended) resemblance to the kinds of things that you see in Bayesian examples of incoherent belief systems (edit - like de Finetti), it seems that his argument is not focused on the epistemological but rather the ontological.

He only uses finance because those Arrow Debreu securities give such a good concrete example of how to stop thinking about probabilities of possible future reality and instead think about actual stuff now. But that's just a metaphor for all of mediated reality.

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

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-13 08:30
Thank you again, nnja; so far you have been the most receptive and most constructive person in this crowd (or should I say, posse?). This is probably because you have taken the trouble of reading carefully the paper that I have attached a few posts back, not to mention reading my book.

Judging by the reactions (or should I say, automatisms) of most of those who have skirmished with me on the premises, I surmise that none of them has gone any farther than skimming the blurb of the book, or the extracts that are available on line.

Most probably the book's subtitle 'The end of probability' must have triggered their Pavlovian reflexes, and those among them who are sophisticated enough to have heard of a distinction between objective probability and subjective probability have flown to the ready conclusion that my book is a reiteration of de Finetti's famous 'Probability doesn't exist!'

The others (those altogether impervious to philosophy and to speculative thought -- I mean thought that is neither empirically nor critically oriented, thought that takes risks, thought that is in a constant state of erection and requires, for this reason, a fitting writing style, sentences that are as difficult to read as they were to write, and readers with whom to copulate and properly exchange thoughts, not readers to fill with 'information' or to breast feed like children) were submerged by the reflex that Sokal had educated in them, and did not even bother to look beneath the surface.

The reason why I turn them to Meillassoux, Badiou, Brassier, etc., instead of de Finetti, Ramsay, Keynes is twofold. First of all, I need them clearly to answer whether it is the philosophy (and its usually difficult style, not to mention words and concepts that may be foreign to them) that they reject in my book, or whether it is my personal turn of phrase. Second, why mention philosophers of probability in my book when I intend the book to move beyond probability? My book is not a probability book (and my work is certainly not scholarly), but a book on contingency and the event. Go and engage with Nassim Taleb if you need to debate probability or improbability. My topic is something else. My topic is a criticism of the delimitation of possibility in 'states of the world'. This criticism applies equally to objective and subjective probability.

So, guys, please read this and this very carefully if you want to know what I am talking about.

Also, it won't do you any harm to carefully study those two pieces, which I import from a publication that will no doubt send shivers in the back of your necks:
Attached File: 1005_coverstory.pdf
Attached File: 1007_ayache.pdf

And for those among you who still have the energy to move to the philosophical, I suggest reading the following article and my subsequent comments at the bottom of the page:
Comments

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

macrotrader


Total Posts: 353
Joined: May 2009
 
Posted: 2010-08-13 10:32
First you say you want to critize the concept of probability and one sentence later you say the book is not about probability, although the title is 'the end of probability'. Very confusing.

>> My topic is a criticism of the delimitation of possibility in 'states of the world'.

Every plan for example is a delimitation of 'states of the world', e.g. 'I am going to get myself some coffee'. When ever somebody describes something he implicitly assumes that there are different, seperable states (objects in time and space). If you can not describe seperate things and the relationship between them, there is nothing to be said.

"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: 2010-08-13 17:16
What's your definition of "replicable" ?

"Anyone who believes that un-replicable derivatives can durably trade and prosper in a market that endures by its own necessity has no other ground for such a belief than sheer dogmatic faith."

http://infinitethought.cinestatic.com/index.php/site/index/the_philosophy_and_economics_of_contingent_claims/

Stock prices are "un-replicable", are they not?

"Anyone who believes that non-redundant derivatives can durably trade and prosper in a market that endures by its own necessity has no other ground for such a belief than sheer dogmatic faith."

"Anyone who believes that derivatives can durably trade and prosper in a market that endures by its own necessity has no other ground for such a belief than sheer dogmatic faith."

"Anyone who believes in markets has no ground for such a belief than sheer dogmatic faith."

A properly civilizing task is to revisit old commonplace things.

pj


Total Posts: 3305
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2010-08-14 13:28
Wrap your heads around this:
numbersix
> I agree. My main thesis is that price is not a number.
Quote from "Turning" attached above
>I have proposed replacing probability with a new kind of number which I call the price

I mean I am OK with Humpty-Dumpty

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

But I draw a line with the White Queen

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

I am not unbelievably short this person only because of gconvex.
< quote corrected >

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

ThirdEye


Total Posts: 36
Joined: Oct 2006
 
Posted: 2010-08-14 15:44
hardcore philosophers

All the hardcore philosophers are all forgotten and are all dead long time ago.

Soon they will return!

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-14 15:55
pj, must you be so tedious? Price is not a number, therefore it is a NEW kind of number (so is numbersix, in case you're not familiar with the famous metaphysical TV series).

gconvex, the underlying stock is a call of strike zero; it is perfectly replicable.

macrotrader, my book is not about probability, it is about the END of probability, or the beginning of what lies beyond, in this case, the im-probable medium of contingent claims -- the market. (I suppose that after debating my subtitle ad nauseam, you're planning to finally open the book?)

Quantum mechanics lies beyond probability, it is a meta-probabilistic predictive theory. Correlatively, it no longer speaks of objects and their properties (in this, you are absolutely right) and it dwells in a realm that is beyond the delimitation of states.

Yet, there is not nothing, but a lot, to say about quantum mechanics, at least from a philosopher's point of view. (Study Bitbol, d'Espagnat, and more recently, de Beistegui).

Guys, so far, I have been very nice and represented philosophy only as a privilege, a luxury, or a distinction of thought. It is about time I spanked your ass and told you that philosophy is a first necessity of thought. That philosophy IS thought.

For this, however, you need to no longer be confused (or embarrassed) by the word 'new' or the word 'end'. Even risk-managers have to use them, sometimes.

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

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2010-08-14 19:56
"What philosophical conclusions can we draw from Feynman's interpretation? Two aspects of it must be emphasized. First, subatomic particles can travel from one location to the next in an infinite number of ways. Second, each individual particle actually traverses every possible trajectory. This leads me to the following question: to what extent is the category of possibility still adequate to describe such phenomena? Is the probabilistic nature of the calculation in micro-physics best understood philosophically by mobilizing this category? I believe not. For when ascribing a potentially infinite number of trajectories to an electron, and recognizing that they may be realized all at the same time, the classical conception of possibility, as prefiguring a thing in its actuality, simply dissolves. Bergson famously rejected as illusory the category of the possible, with which the concept of actuality has always been associated. For him, the real does not unfold by way of pre-given possibilities that are subsequently actualized. [...] Contrary to what Aristotle and a certain common sense believes, possibilities do not so much precede actualities as they are extracted from them and retrospectively situated before them. Possibilities are merely derived from actualities and arti-ficially constructed, in what amounts to a sort of illusory anteriority. As such, they do not add or explain anything.''

Miguel de Beistegui
Truth and Genesis: Philosophy as Differential Ontology

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

ThirdEye


Total Posts: 36
Joined: Oct 2006
 
Posted: 2010-08-14 22:15
'That philosophy IS thought'

not a bad guess for such a young man, but your opinion on this will change.
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 3 of 29Goto to page: 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 28, 29 Prev Next