zlacker

Predicting the stock market will likely never happen because it’s recursive. We can predict the next 10 days of weather, but the weather doesn’t change because it read your forecast. As long as markets continue to react to their own reactions, they will remain unpredictable.

If the strategy is long, there might be alpha to be found. But day trading? No way.

>>mvkel+(OP)
If stocks are more of a closed system that are weakly affected by external factors in the short term, now I finally understand why they hire so many physicists for financial modeling!

There is of course the fact that physicists tend to be the best applied mathematicians, even if they don’t end up using any of their physics knowledge. And they generally had the reputation of “the smartest” people for the last century.

Anyway, such systems are complex and chaotic yes, but there are many ways of predicting aspects of them, like with fluid simulation to give a basic example. And I don’t get your point about weather, it is also recursive in the same way and reacting to its own reactions. Sure it is not reacting to predictions of itself, but that’s just a special kind of reaction, and patterns in others predictions can definitely be predicted accurately, perhaps not individually but in the aggregate.

>>mvkel+(OP)
"We can predict the next 10 days of weather, but the weather doesn’t change because it read your forecast."

Less true than it used to be, with cloud seeding being an off-the-shelf technology now. Still largely true, but not entirely true anymore.

>>oerste+z1
> there are many ways of predicting aspects of them

Yes, and it's priced in

> but that’s just a special kind of reaction

That's just arguing semantics. My point was that weather doesn't react to human predictions, explicitly