24.9.25 8:35 AM
How is there a sense of epistemological truth in crypto?

In finance?

This system is bonkers because it's always people doing predictions and explanations and always people being completely wrong when they have been right before

you're trying to model and understand a system
but how in the hell do you understand a machine like this?

The thing is that it should be possible

People build toy models all the time that approximate and compress the messy actors well enough to at least be certain of some things

hell, to at least be certain of what is POSSIBLE

but I look around at all of this and right now I feel a bit hopeless.
I used to understand it with immense clarity, but rn I'm lead to believe this shit is unpinnable

but

this is just a belief

I know the market is not efficient
I know it can be deduced

anybody who says else is doomed to fail.
this is the beautiful game.

24.9.25 8:46 AM
The question is

in such a polluted environment (noise/signal), how the hell would you deduce what is true and what is fake?

As in, what does impact the market and what is only confabulation after the fact, or lucky correlation when doing a prediction beforehand?

What could make you truly believe that something is the cause to an effect?

My framework for deducing epistemically sound information is just kind of lost right now.

I know I always find the patterns, but conceptually rn I'm really wondering how one could even go about predicting this market.

Maybe it's the self limiting belief of the fact the market cannot be predicted anymore because it's "too complex" and populated with "actors that have grown too sophisticated"...

I don't know

I mean there's definitely certainties I've always managed to deduce. Always.

Modelling the market as what the people buy and where the eyeballs with the money are.

Basic heuristic but that seems to get you 80% there...

In any case, playing markets is pure deduction.

I always use the allegory of a scientist attempting to do empirical science vs a detective that's trying to solve a murder

the scientist cries that the study wasn't done double blind placebo controlled and throws out the results

while the detective has literally nothing of certainty to work off and has to condemn a suspect to prison based off of this