[throwaway487548]

> the stock market /is/ a set of correlated random variables

No. this is neo-platonic bullshit. In this context is here must be a type-error. What could be imagined in not what really is - reality is one, interpretations are infinite. Stock Market is the result of human (and computer) actions - the result of actions of all institutional participants. This is what it is.

A model could be created to be superimposed on these partially-observable stochastic processes (and, boy, there is no shortage of these, and no one is right, of course) but it will be only a model, usefulness and applicability of which depends upon who is using it and for what means (usually, bullshitting).

Geometry is closer to "what is" because it abstracts out "concrete" patterns this universe is able to produce (and lots of imaginary bullshit, of course).

Let me stress is a gain - maths are generalized and abstracted out patterns of what is, plus abstract sectarian bullshit. Reality comes first, (it is a closure) interpretations and abstractions are bound by it.

[throwawaymath]

I'm having difficulty following what you're saying here. I think you're saying mathematical models are only an (imperfect) interpretetion of reality, which sounds fine.

But then you're talking about "sectarian bullshit" and "neo-platonic bullshit". And at the same time, you called the stock market a "partially observable stochastic process" - why do you have an issue with calling something in reality a set of random variables, but you don't have an issue with calling it a stochastic process? Those are the same thing.

Honestly it feels like you launched into a tirade over a perfectly innocent and fine choice of words. I don't think the commenter you responded to meant to push some kind of weird philosophical agenda.