I recently created an algorithm, that has yet to been seen by many as of today. This is an algorithm that can predict with a strong edge the direction of cryptocurrencies. It trades and makes long term calls. The results are made public (along with signals) at:
BITDROID
To further give back to the community I would like to discuss complexity as I believe it is an interesting topic and one that receives so little attention and it is one that has led me to be able to model cryptocurrencies something that not many can do. I think about everything as factors and consider influences deeply, it is a core part to how I think, which I think sets me apart from most. I appreciate everyone's differences and skills so I wish to share a little about mine. I can just hope this will be beneficial to people in some way or another.
I finished the piece in the end and published it
here:
https://medium.com/@danielharvey_59478/textured-complexity-theory-on-the-subconscious-41690016151
Below is just a draft or something.
Understanding our limitations
A factor is an influence that contributes to the result, the result could be an end result or a state or a moment preceding the previous moment. Factors are just influences, be it information or parts of a system. A factor could also be considered a reference to a point which has a value. Therefore in order for us to make sense of the actuality of what we observe we need to work within some kind of structure to comprehend our surroundings.
After all the mind doesn’t work on what is actually there it uses influences and pockets of information to make sense of what is. A chair is not just us a chair to us and that is because, where it was made or its shape or colour all have meaning to us in some way or another.
Therefore the observed state such as an object in front of us is processed by our minds as having multiple states and all of this makes up the actual state to us as a whole. That is because we need to process to make sense of what is. This means the actual object or how interactions occur and so on are impossible for us to adopt without breaking them up into pieces that can be understood. We can only work to a degree of accuracy due to the fact we process rather than adopt. The mind cannot discover exactly what is what because it needs to create its own structure to make sense of something and when it does that it is subjected to interpretation and meaning that it has created within itself. Although the mind does this with the objective of obtaining value from what is there.
The mind works this way because there is too much complexity and naturally seeks to reduce it to make sense of what is. In its natural attempt in doing this factors are grouped and or filtered in an effort to reduce the complexity. It still doesn’t change the actuality to what is, it only helps observe, validate or decipher the subject or state in question.
In life a particular situation or problem can be given thought and this is done by placing boundaries around factors or typing them to know a particular result belonging to that subset or type even if it isn’t thought of as a result in the typical sense. This might be done in an attempt to know where a ball will land, only the properties that the mind believes are useful to this are considered but not everything about that ball is about its projected path through time. How the ball looks or how it was made could be discussed as it travels through the air, but it may not have value with regards to where the focus is. It is unnecessary for the mind to consider all factors as it is often not useful in its objective but it is also impossible for it to do so. After all the ball is just going moment to moment as a cluster of atoms.
Factors as a matrix
The mind holds a huge matrix that is the conscious mind and within that there are clusters of factors, factors form together to make higher level factors which form together to make further clusters of factors that help construct thought.
This all impacts how someone perceives the world. Everything in life that is felt, experienced or thought about by a person is subjected by that person’s window of focus and the values of factors within their own individual matrix and they work in sync with the matrix of life.
People’s observations or thoughts tend towards reduction within complexity and that is in order to gain accuracy within a subset by using focus which gives up immediate value but it is the way the mind finds value. This then helps to validate other factors or thoughts which helps to provide further structure and this then widens the ability to capture, which is what unfolds when we learn. The mind wants to comprehend something rather than everything, because everything becomes a greater possibility by the mind when it operates in this manner. Reduction and focus take place on the subset matrix in question and it happens in the form of type casting, filtering or grouping. Filtering out factors happens constantly by the human mind. It is not just a ball unless collectively it is agreed it is just a ball and often this happens for the purpose of obtaining value and by doing so every other factor is temporarily ignored.
In this way anything can be supported no matter how flawed it is, because internal thoughts only needs to be self-supportive, they don’t need to be truthful. This is why when someone learns something new or contradictory they will need to restructure more than the actual concept that they learnt in order to fully adopt it. People need to experience to integrate, otherwise there is no emotional attachment and that is a factor of influence in itself, the source and memory associated with a recall is all consequential of the past windows of time. To adapt and grow with new knowledge matrices need to restructure a wider set of influences otherwise the person won’t act upon new information merely only holding it as a factor due to a reason such as needing to recall it. These supportive factors can also prevent an individual from changing their opinion as the only requirement by the mind is a great enough influence. New influences are coninuously being created but they will not necessarily change the individual’s opinion as that is a collective sum of the weight of influences. To the mind everything is weighted as an influence and pulls on itself within itself. Whilst we can learn something new this dynamic of weight also works to protect information from being changed too freely. Individual matrixes don’t need truth nor do they need to be near complete to be felt as near complete, they only work with what is known to the individual and stay true to that.
If a person has an area that takes their interest, it would be due to having influences to support those thoughts. The mind doesn’t do something which doesn’t hold true within itself, it doesn’t seek to learn something or carry out an action that is not supported by enough influence. The mind only works towards factors which have greater support whether useful or not. Therefore interest is natural due to influence and it is one such way that focus arises. Interest isn’t just focus because when interest is gained it means influences are changed which can be thought of as giving a subset of factors added worth or weight due to focus which then helps attract focus due to the added influence. The mind may have built in processes that carry out a task but without interaction from the world they may well remain untouched until provoked, they can be provoked in any manner as all they need is focus. Therefore the mind finds purpose by working of off influence and interaction. Interaction works similarly as it puts focus on factors that may help to address something like a change in the environment and these factors all have some kind of influence to supportive processes or subsets of matrices even if there is little influence it will still simply just find the paths of most influence within itself. Factors are continuously being changed or offset within the matrix but most of the factors in life go past without being known or experienced by people and if they are experienced they are adopted into the individual’s matrix in some manner.
Emotions react to change within a person's matrix, they help to feel complexity and add complexity into the individual’s matrix. It does this so it can use thought to reiterate that feel as points of values which are factors. It does this because it is a factor or an influence and therefore the mind naturally adopts it. This is carried out without changing the complexity that gave rise to itself which helps reiterate large complexities into the matrix from the result. Emotion is adopted as factors to support and not overwrite what generated itself. Emotions help people understand complexity whilst thought is specific to accuracy which works against complexity comparatively.
If you think about someone you know well for a few seconds you tend to not recall anything specific yet you feel a great sense of knowing so much. That is because the matrix that supports what you know about that person has its own structure, its own depth and a shape which can be experienced as a feel. If something about that matrix was changed it would change the structure and the shape of the matrix. The bigger the change the greater the emotion felt. People use thoughts to address specifics and use feel expressed as a complex emotion to address change in the overall shape of a matrix. If a matrix changes fast it provokes a strong emotional state, it is the minds shortcut to reacting to complexity and it does so without needing immediate focus.
Something which appears to have no value to a person before can be made to have value just by recognizing or experiencing something and in doing so it creates new influences as factors within the matrix. There isn’t emotion without change unless there being no change is a factor to an emotion, which is the minds way of going from a cluster of factors to another as directed by a factor with great enough influence but either way there is still a shape because there is always a matrix to be felt and so we are always in a state that has an emotion behind it. When in focused thought we are never on top of a single factor it is still comprised of a cluster of factors but the deeper down we go into specifics within a matrix the lesser the complexity and so the lesser the emotion until you find yourself deep in thought in an almost emotionless state.
The Luck Factor
Luck doesn’t exist to the underlining matrix but it does to an individual’s matrix. What is luck? Luck is a term used in many different ways but it is the result of unknown or incomplete factors to an individual that impacts the matrix of factors known to that individual. It can be illustrated through the example of rolling a dice. When a dice is rolled there are a lot of factors at play, it is complex and therefore unpredictable at least in the situations that we use them. This is because the dice is observed through sight as it rolls and then the result is seen. The result is not known until the dice stops so it appears random, but it is not random. Dice have rounded edges to increase the complexity, when something increases in complexity it becomes more complicated to fathom out. Similarly to how we reduce complexity in getting a result in attempt to find meaning. Which means if the dice had square edges it wouldn’t roll as much and it may actually become slightly predictable, so it would feel and be less ‘random’ due to a lower level of complexity to its possible actions. If we increased its complexity in its structure by increasing the number of sides it would create more possibility and therefore more complexity. The factors that aren’t known to the individual still have influence and still take part in shaping the result. When it is not known that they don’t exist or their true values are not known or are off balanced they contribute as a luck factor. Outcomes fall somewhere between below expectation to above expectation due to this, which is bad luck to good luck. People might use bad luck to mean a lot further below average or group areas and measure their average to determine it, the term is freely used and is interpreted differently by people but it doesn’t change what is expected and what actually happens. The difference is always there.
Therefore luck is a term used due to the inability to be so knowing about everything, luck is the part that is in play that isn’t known and sometimes a lot can be known but yet the bit that isn’t can have a big influence or cause people unexpected problems. It’s not through fault necessarily, although maybe making better decisions or being more open previous to this moment could have allowed there to be more known truths in the current moment and therefore less of a luck factor. This is also not static, it goes back to the past and forward to the future, luck extends from the window of focus and is an offset of the past. The factors working as unknown or incomplete factors may not be so reachable or possible to have known and this may also be difficult to reflect upon once known. Often a stronger more complete matrix is needed to see that, which happens when someone with a stronger more complete matrix interacts with someone who is lacking in a particular area. This can make it clear to one but not the other.
In life the absolute state in full is unknown but the stronger the matrix in terms of completeness the clearer things become. People can feel that they have clarity when they don’t and this can create a sense of knowing less the more they learn but in actual terms they are gaining a kind of rough clarity when they discover more of the factors in play.
If we shape the results into just two results for example a ball either coming back down or not, we can solve it by knowing that gravity dictates the outcome but if we wish to try to work out roughly where the ball will land the complexity increases and therefore there are more unknown or incomplete factors in determining the result, which means luck now plays a factor despite their being no difference in the action itself. Which means are focus dictates how luck operates to us or if it even exists or in actual terms we can choose to observe the outcome of factors beyond our understanding or not. Attention to detail brings about an increase of luck, typically, so in a way we can create luck and that is because with less of it there is often less complexity and therefore the model becomes easier to solve. In order to have that we need to narrow our perception which is sometimes counterproductive. People sometimes say they think people make their own luck in life, but what they really mean is people can create opportunities, but it turns out in a way we can create our own luck.
Opportunities come about through knowing more but they can also come about due to luck. We don’t need to know an opportunity is coming our way to have it come our way but if we don’t know it was approaching it will appear to us more so as luck. We can still know about it and consider it as luck but that is because we interpreted its possibility of being there through chance. Chance doesn’t exist either and like luck it still stems from our ability of not knowing the full picture. After all if something incredible happens to us that seemed so unlikely it is known to us as luck although it did in fact take place for specific reasons that were unknown and some of which may have been shaped by us more than we know or less so.
We can always be better at steering ourselves through life and we can use knowledge to do that and it doesn’t mean we won’t end up steering ourselves into a wall either. If we did anticipate something rewarding coming our way it wouldn’t feel like a stroke of luck as much as it may have felt if we hadn’t of thought about it. At least we are more likely to be ready to maximize value from it. Some people may be prone to strokes of luck due to this but on average they will not get as far as those who uncover information.
If two players play a game there are always unknown variables, at least in most games. Through practice we learn the factors and learn how to utilize them, the ones we don’t know about, such as how exactly our arms movement will propel a ball, means there are factors we can’t control or know about, the complexity is too great, so there we have luck once again. When a player plays a skilled player, he needs actions or decisions to work out in his favour even when he doesn’t know the answer or the movement quite needed, the factors outside his control need to work out better than someone who has more control, which is often possible. When two players are high in skill and their skill is more equal than the influence of unknown factors, luck would then be a strong dictation of the result. The closer their skill the higher the influence of luck. Therefore luck doesn’t necessarily shrink when we improve or learn it is highly subjected by what is at hand.
In poker a lot of the unknown factors and the known factors are separated and often the unknown factors become known later. Decisions get made and then cards are revealed, it has a clearer separation of where luck is operating and so luck becomes more apparent than in other games or in comparison to how we see it in life. Poker players are notorious for talking about luck and it is because of this. It is also because players can evaluate that they would have won if the card was a different card and due to the fact players know how many of each card approximately are left in the deck they can calculate the odds of being lucky or unlucky even if they just roughly approximate it. Life rarely allows for results to be verified due to the factors that caused influence. People are far blinder and we have invented concepts such as chance to address it and to help us interpret what is not known.
Our perception of ourselves and others is highly subjected to the outcome that happened. Due to focus, filtering, grouping, communication, thinking and survival and so we are taking in only a fraction of what is. It is the only way for us to operate and we make everything look simpler. We often place thousands of outcomes into a group, converging upwards of billions of data points into 1 data point and creating influence from only this one point and not the billions inside it, there are still far more unknowns than knowns, there are far more influences working beyond our ability to comprehend. Every factor we have is never fully complete because it can be broken down further into more factors, each of which can be broken down again, some are just unreachable in our understanding. The relationship between factors plays off of individual factors within factors and the complexity is far beyond anything else. Luck is the biggest factor but in life it doesn’t always feel like that. After all we can try really hard to get good at something and can get there through hard work so how much of what we do is really luck in terms of what is reality to us and how do we break the model to shape it in a way that maximizes value? Are those at the top of their field just lucky or skilled, how sharp or soft is the blend between the two and how do we maximize decision making.
to be continued.. (hopefully)
