|
|
|
|
|
by alvis
3245 days ago
|
|
I am keen to second here. With a PhD in probability & loads of experience in data analytics, my experience has told me that we are too ignorant and sometime too ambitious to try to predict a the outcome of a stochastic process (e.g. financial time series) without knowing that the amount of information required to make a sound prediction is far beyond those we have. Unless there's a very clear dominating signal among thousands of information sources, very often we are trading on noise. Although I don't necessarily agree with all the points in this article, it just reminds me what Poincaré said: `You ask me to predict for you the phenomena about to happen. If, unluckily, I knew the laws of these phenomena I could make the prediction only by inextricable calculations and would have to renounce attempting to answer you; but as I have the good fortune not to know them, I will answer you at once. And what is most surprising, my answer will be right.'
-- Poincaré, H. (1913) The Foundations of Science. New York, The Science Press. p. 396. |
|