I’m a philosopher, wondering about the World. Nothing unusual for a philosopher.

Anyway, I wrote some thoughts about the economics. A major part of it is about the quantitative math in economics. It is kind of “macro” and “how to save the world”, so I assume it should fit this forum. Since I’m interested in truth, before anything else, I’d like to ask a question to the professionals:

Could anyone prove me wrong in anything I wrote?

My text (http://philosopher4hire.eu/index.php?nr=3) is 7 pages long. This excerpt should let you feel what it is like:

For the technical analysis the fundamental assumption is the price move dependency. Technical analysis states that the future price moves are strongly dependent on the previous (past) moves. An analyst needs to search for patterns that repeat themselves. If the future moves of the price would be independent from what happened in the past (especially in the most recent past), then the technical analysis would be a lie.

The quantitative math uses the opposite assumption. All the probability based mathematics, which is the foundation for the quantitative analysis, requires each price move to be totally independent from the preceding moves. Exactly as it happens with the coin tossing (the favorite example of all quants, btw). The next result is independent from what you got previously. The probability of receiving tails does not depend on the number of previously received heads. If this assumption fails, then all the sophisticated economic quant math analysis is a lie. At least, for a mathematician.

If for example chemistry would be like economics, we could have two classrooms full of students. In one, they would be taught that one element cannot be changed into another during a chemical reaction. That such change requires a nuclear fusion. In the neighboring classroom, they would learn, that there are chemical reactions which can change one element into another. Especially, every ‘heavy’ metal like iron or lead can be transformed into gold in a special, alchemical reaction. We only have to discover such reaction.

It would be a perfectly reasonable approach, if only we would remove the no contradiction rule from science.

**‘A science’ containing contradictions is not a science, but an intellectual mess.**