Is my performance so far this year good, bad or ugly?

On a total of 26 trades
I've had 13 winners, 5 losers and 5 ties (+-1%) this year.

The 13 winners ave return was 8% each
The 5 losers -4% each.
The average return for all 26 trades was about 3.5% each.
That's roughly 21/2 trades a week, 8% return per week.

Damn, now that I've typed this out, that sounds pretty good
to me. I'm getting psyched.

The basic idea behind my trading system is outlined
abstractly in the first link....great stuff.

I think I can claim
to have successfully used Chaos Theory, now called
Complexity Science, in creating a very simple trading system.

I think I've finally done it!!!

Does anyone know of any trading systems using the concepts
of chaos theory?

I've looked and haven't found anything
online yet even close.

TOWARD THE 'EDGE METHODOLOGY' FOR COMPLEX
SYSTEMS SIMULATION
http://www.calresco.org/milov/ymtemcss.htm

My bible

The Complexity & Artificial Life Research Concept
for Self-Organizing Systems
http://www.calresco.org/

jonathan <maatschj@write.instead.net> wrote in message


I'm getting bored...what makes you THINK that these results
aren't the result of "luck" rather than design?

The basic idea behind my trading system is outlined
abstractly in the first link....great stuff.

I ain't gonna look at it...what's it say?

I think I can claim
to have successfully used Chaos Theory, now called
Complexity Science, in creating a very simple trading system.

Where have I heard this before? Oh, that's right, right in this
newsgroup (misc.invest.stocks) from a guy who posted a few
times, couldn't back up any of his claims, then disappeared...

I think I've finally done it!!!

You THINK?

Do you know the difference between "thinking" and "hoping"?

Does anyone know of any trading systems using the concepts
of chaos theory?

My system draws in part from chaos theory. It most importantly
draws from the chaos theory concept of "multiplication of errors",
in which very small initial data errors are magnified and prediction
becomes well-nigh impossible...hence the name "chaos" theory...

I've looked and haven't found anything
online yet even close.

Anything that really "works" isn't going to be widely-disseminated...

TOWARD THE 'EDGE METHODOLOGY' FOR COMPLEX
SYSTEMS SIMULATION
http://www.calresco.org/milov/ymtemcss.htm

If I actually looked at this, it'd probably be something I worked
out like twenty years ago...

My bible

The Complexity & Artificial Life Research Concept
for Self-Organizing Systems
http://www.calresco.org/

How ya feel about genetic algorithms? They're "fun" too...

---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 975

"Bill Reid" <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote in message
news:Ms_Dj.22159$D_3.15454@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
jonathan <maatschj@write.instead.net> wrote in message

I'm getting bored...what makes you THINK that these results
aren't the result of "luck" rather than design?

Too early to say, but the results have been steadily improving.

Of the five losers, two of them were the very first two trades (-3% each)
where I was more interested in seeing if the account still worked.
And a third was a 9% percent loss that was a fluke I believe.
I bought the stock online as usual, but when I went to sell
a couple of hours later that day, dear e-trade said the stock
can only be sold through a broker now, not online anymore.
Since it was going up too fast.

By the time I got a broker a nice gain turned into the loss.
The other two losers were 2% each.

But 8 out of the 13 winners were 5%, %5, 7%, 10%, 10%, 10%17%,23%.

And this is trading while I can only sneek onto the company
computer for less than an hour a day, and mostly using
my cell phone for trading. With it's little-bitty fuzzy charts.

The basic idea behind my trading system is outlined
abstractly in the first link....great stuff.

I ain't gonna look at it...what's it say?

It says, that under certain dynamical states, all stocks will
behave in the same way. And (only) at this state, the behavior
becomes not at all dependent on the specific inner details of the
company at hand.

Also, (only) this dynamic state is defined the
theoretical point at which volatility and predictability
converge to /simultaneous/ maximums.

These are some of the key properties of what is called
The Edge of Chaos. You already know the basic idea
but probably don't realize it's potential.

A cloud, while a cloud, stands persistanly poised at the
transition point between water and vapor. It's at the
Edge of Chaos. What happens if the temp or humidity
changes even a bit? The cloud suddenly becomes....either
water or vapor.

A very dramatic yet predictable change that occurs
in the very same way every time, regardless of the
nature of the system. Living, physical or even emotional.

The trick is to find a chart that is at this delicate transition point.

Drive a system just far enough from equilibruim, and they can act
like a flock of birds when driven by good news.
Or thunderstorms when the news is gloomy.

Either way, dramatic yet predictable change takes
place at or near either extremes in possibility.
Whether a bubble bursting or a company teeteriing
on the brink of disaster. Exploring the sweet spots
or transition points of either /extremes/ are where
it's at.

I think I can claim
to have successfully used Chaos Theory, now called
Complexity Science, in creating a very simple trading system.

Where have I heard this before? Oh, that's right, right in this
newsgroup (misc.invest.stocks) from a guy who posted a few
times, couldn't back up any of his claims, then disappeared...

That probably would be me, I've been working on this for
a couple of years.

I'm finally giving it a test with larger
sums of money.

Eh hum...I finally have larger sums of
money to test it with...I should say~
In the past it's tested out about the same.

I think I've finally done it!!!

You THINK?

I'm pretty sure, but ya know, I've been wrong once or twice~

Do you know the difference between "thinking" and "hoping"?

Amount of data.

The trades so far are only a tease, more than hope
but less than sure.

Does anyone know of any trading systems using the concepts
of chaos theory?

My system draws in part from chaos theory. It most importantly
draws from the chaos theory concept of "multiplication of errors",
in which very small initial data errors are magnified and prediction
becomes well-nigh impossible...hence the name "chaos" theory...

I've looked and haven't found anything
online yet even close.

Anything that really "works" isn't going to be widely-disseminated...

Well it should be, in (chaos) theory the more that know, the better
it will work for everyone.

Once I'm fat and happy, I'll be more
detailed. For now I'm sticking with discussing theory only.
These concepts require some ability to take an idea and run with it.

How ya feel about genetic algorithms? They're "fun" too...

Nature shows us the process for the best possible solution
to any problem.

jonathan <maatschj@write.instead.net> wrote in message
news:OT%Dj.22123$dT.10080@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Bill Reid" <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote in message
news:Ms_Dj.22159$D_3.15454@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

So you're day-trading a single "rocket ship", probably a low-priced
issue. You've already got a ton of volatility inherent in the stock, which
tends to negate any market out-performance of your short-term results
statistically...

Maybe you should study just a little bit of physics, look up
the name "Heisenberg", or any type of game theory dealing
with pari-mutuel payoffs, or poker (your chaotic boundary is
the result of what in poker is called players "going on tilt").

Nature shows us how to wreck the friggin' SuperDome, after
the weatherman "predicts" the storm will not hit New Orleans...but
Lorenz told us 50 years ago why we couldn't predict nature with
anywhere near 100% accuracy...riiiiiight?!??!!

---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 976

"Bill Reid" <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote in message
news:1L9Ej.45512$cQ1.39493@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

So you're day-trading a single "rocket ship", probably a low-priced
issue. You've already got a ton of volatility inherent in the stock,
which
tends to negate any market out-performance of your short-term results
statistically...

It's a short term system.

The idea is to start with a system at equilibrium
that's been suddenly disturbed.

It's the /reaction/ to the disturbance
that's being studied for emergent patterns, in complexity science.
And it's the edge behavior that's interesting, and where universal
patterns are found.

Maybe you should study just a little bit of physics, look up
the name "Heisenberg", or any type of game theory dealing
with pari-mutuel payoffs, or poker (your chaotic boundary is
the result of what in poker is called players "going on tilt").

Here though we're dealing only with far from equilibrium states, and
properties of collective behavior where history matters.

In stock charts an edge state takes the form of a panic sell
or panic buy.

Where a small perturbation over time cascades
and begins accelerating and converging on one or the other limits
in possible behavior. As with a genetic algorithm searching
for function limits. It's only a matter of time before the system
slams into its own practical boundaries when the disturbance
is of the proper character. Giving a very reliable bottom or top.

This presents situations where pretty much everyone that
will sell has, or might buy has. The future then is pretty easy
to predict.

When either limit is found, the near future is always obvious
to everyone.

System behavior then becomes detached from
system specifics.

So the buyers and sellers, at the edge, suddenly agree and
flock together in a very predictable way.

At least until the
energy gathered in the drive from equilibrium is gone.

This is an attempt to use the general properties of self-organized
complex adaptive systems as a guide to determine the
chart variable values which cause /any/ system to seek out and
converge upon it's own limits in possible behavior.

/Uncertainty/ drives systems to the edge and generates
universal behavior. To predict real world systems we must
learn to /quantify/ ...uncertainty. This is what I'm attempting
and will try to show below.

It turns out that when the primary driving variables of
any system are in the range where they give the very /least/
amount of predictability, and all at the same time, the system
begins hill-climbing, evolving and converging towards the edge.

When a variable is within this miminum, it is said to be in the
complex realm. As far from either simple endpoints as
possible, so that one can't tell which extreme dominates.

So that one can't gain any predictive value at all due
to the equal distance from either certain endpoint.

So, the mathematical task to define under what conditions any
system will display universal behavior, is simply to define the
primary system variables, then define the complex range for each.

Then draw the chart from that.

The three primary variables of a chart pattern are of course
price, volume and the transient length.

Which is the length
the disturbance driving the system from equilibrium lasts.

Defining the complex realm is highly subjective, as is
complexity science in general.

But that isn't an obstacle
to reliability.

All complex dynamic systems can be defined in terms
of their static, dynamic and chaotic attractor behavior.

Pattern/transient length.

The complex realm is simply the time period that's as far from
either extreme as possible as observed in practice.

One extreme as observed in time frames is the day-traders
which operate loosely speaking in /minutes or hours/.
The opposite extreme or limit in time frame is of course
the longs, which operate again loosely in periods of
/months and years/. So a complex time period would
be neither and both, in between.../days or weeks/.
More than a day, less than a month.

Ten to twenty day pattern/transient lengths define the complex
range or pattern length with the least ability to inform the
future.

Initial Price

One extreme is the penny stocks, the other is the blue chips.
Defining where blue chips begin is rather subjective.

But the price which typically reflects stability is sufficient.

Defining the penney stocks is easier of course, let the
lower extreme be the point at which stocks are booted
off the exchange, say $2.

And the opposite extreme to
be over $10 or $20 is good enough. These boundaries
are defined much like porn, you know 'em when you
see 'em.

So the disturbance should take place on a stock that is
at the upper range of the complex realm, say $10
or $20. And the distirbance should end near the
lower range of the complex realm, say $5 or $10.

Initial Volume

Again, the high and low extremes are subjective and arbitrary.

Doesn't matter. Complex volume would not be, oh, 20 million
shares a day, or a hundred thousand. But somewhere
in between such obvious extremes.

Those are the necesary initial conditions.

Then comes the disturbance.

It must ...also...be a complex disturbance.
Neither so weak or so strong that it's future
effect is obvious.

But it must also be of such
a magnitude so that one can't tell if it will quickly
die off or totally destroy.

The opposite extremes in effect on price of any
disturbance would be of course a price that
changes little over time, or changes all at once
in a single spike down. So, of course, a complex
rate of change of price would be again...in between.

OK, so you're not just trading big down/up days...

A scale independent 45% degree angle or slope of
minus 1.

Oh yeah, absolutely...what? Actually, I THINK I may

Final volume

Again, between little change and too much like
an order of magnitdue. The final volume, when
arriving at the edge, should be roughly double
initial.

OK, not too high a volume either, gotcha...

Final price.

Again, a complex change in price would be between
no change and zero.

While not falling out of the complex
range.

A fall of minus one half, 50%, that stops somewhere in the
lower portion of the complex range.

OK, as in "I'm STILL listening"...

ALL variables, initial, final and total change must
display the maximum amount of ...uncertainty.
They must all be complex. Then and only then
the system behavior becomes universal.

IBID

Of course all parameters are loosely defined.
They draw a very recognizable pattern that doesn't
really need much accuracy.

I don't like the sound of that, I don't like it at all..

If you've read this far, thanks.

If you have chart options
for ...20 days, as with Quote Tracker, then look at the
chart patterns of these four tickers from the last few days.
As you can see, they all meet the parameters rather well.
There are plenty of them every week as you can see below.
Too many I couldn't decide which to play as usual.

Me personally, I would let my computer look for tens of

Look at bxxx, smbl, rso, novn. (20 day charts)

A child could make ten percent a week.

And they all do the same thing. Independent of company
details, problems or whatever.

Like any nice thunderstorm, the phase change or reversal
is announced when the system finally converges on the edge
with a nice loud clap of thunder (volume spike), followed
by a brief rain-shower. Then the pattern is over. There
is no real predictability beyond that point.

As long as we have thousands of candidates, giving us

Nature shows us how to wreck the friggin' SuperDome, after
the weatherman "predicts" the storm will not hit New Orleans...but
Lorenz told us 50 years ago why we couldn't predict nature with
anywhere near 100% accuracy...riiiiiight?!??!!

The weathermen predicted Katrina well enough.
No one listened.

Actually, talk to anybody in hurricane country, they'll tell you

Who needs 100% accuracy.

We need to know how to design
systems with the properties of naturally evolving systems.
And let the system find its own way to the ideal.

Science needs to get off the obsesssion on how to
predict based on part properties, on deriving fundamental
law from the simplest the universe has to offer.
And begin writing new fundamental laws based on the
most /complex/ the universe has to offer....life.

Rant on!!!

The Great Mistake of modern science is to think we can
unravel reality by starting with the simplest, the physical
universe, in order to later understand the most complex
such as life.

Go rant go!!!

It's the other way 'round. Life....Darwin...the abstract properties
of biological evolution show us the fundamental laws of order
governing the entire universe. We can only truly understand
the physical universe through Darwin.

Well, you don't have to worry about me stealing your system, since
I didn't understand it...but then I had the same problem with the "Jack
Hershey" system...anyway...

The idea is to start with a system at equilibrium
that's been suddenly disturbed.

Hmmmm, seemed somebody just brought up something similar
in another thread, but they were going to electrical oscillation constants
to trade...and there are always people who just buy anything at the
top of the daily losers list, hoping it will "oscillate" up (happens a lot,
also doesn't happen many times)...

How do you detect the "panic" in the buy or sell? Just by the
size of the move in relation to previous trading?

So, middle of the "trading range"...or not?

Would you overlay fundamental charts on technical charts?
Or are you talking about some specific representational techniques
from chaos theory? Are you looking at anything more than price
and volume?

The three primary variables of a chart pattern are of course
price, volume and the transient length.

OK, we're up to three inputs...I guarantee you there are more
for stock analysis in general, but for your purposes these MIGHT
suffice (this is now starting to look a little like what technical
analysts call "stochastics" or "oscillators")...

Which is the length
the disturbance driving the system from equilibrium lasts.

"Jack Hershey" used to say that you could detect LACK
of "equilibrium" when trading volume went DOWN (buyers and
sellers could not "agree"); this would signal a turning point in
the trading, and you'd wait for the next move on higher
volume to determine the direction and trade that way...

Defining the complex realm is highly subjective, as is
complexity science in general.

Oh, I don't like the sound of that, don't like it at all...

"Bill Reid" <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote in message
news:KkPEj.29235$D_3.1584@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Well, you don't have to worry about me stealing your system, since
I didn't understand it...but then I had the same problem with the "Jack
Hershey" system...anyway...

Which is probably due to my inability to clearly explain it.

"If we have a complex system whose formula is unknown in
detail, one would think it is impossible to determine with any
certainty its ultimate behaviour. However, one of the main
themes within the field of Chaos Theory is the universal behaviour
of complex systems on the edge of chaos where the main
features of the "outward" behaviour are not dependent
on their hidden "inward" mechanism."
http://www.calresco.org/milov/ymtemcss.htm

At the edge, we should have very good intermediate term
predictability without relying on any internal variable
details. A way for an outsider to gain the advantage.
And at the edge, the stock should display many of the
other primary properties of edge states.

3.3 What is the Edge of Chaos?

"For systems on the Edge of Chaos the properties match those
seen in liquid systems, a potential for either solid or gaseous
behaviour, or both."
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm#3.3

OR, where system uncertainty is at an absolute maximum.
As the edge is the region where the system displays both
opposite extremes in possible behavior at once, as in a cloud
standing poised between water and vapor.
Or in the market this point could be considered where one
can no longer tell if it's better to day-trade the thing or
go long. Both camps become out of their element at
the Edge. Fluids have short term order, molecules tend
to drag others along for awhile, combined with long term
unpredictability.

It's not a coincidence life is associated with fluids.
As an edge state is where systems begin the process
of self organization. They 'take on a life of their own'.

The idea is to start with a system at equilibrium
that's been suddenly disturbed.

Hmmmm, seemed somebody just brought up something similar
in another thread, but they were going to electrical oscillation
constants
to trade...and there are always people who just buy anything at the
top of the daily losers list, hoping it will "oscillate" up (happens a
lot,
also doesn't happen many times)...

Some do. The ones that display maximum uncertainty in their chart
pattern. The idea is to derive from theory what a chart would look
like if it were at the Edge, or approaching a critical point

So, if we could derive this perfect chart, the one pattern that
/all companies/ would display at maximum uncertainty, we
would have a chart that display universal edge properties..which...

1) requires little or no knowledge of internal system details
2) displays the point where volatility and predictability are at
simultaneous maximums.
3) behavior becomes universal, any stock at all could display
this universal pattern which is at the point where uncertainty
overwhelms objective methods.

This will be a chart that has a very large change in direction
coming, which it will announce in advance in a very reliable
way. The saying applies that 'one can't know what exactly
will happen at the Edge, only that something interesting
will happen'.

Which means you can trust the pattern to act in the way
it should. And act big. The transition point always seems
to announce itself somehow, you just have to wait for it
to show. And trust in the pattern to behave as anyone
would expect.

Look at the fun I had with asti today. Or fmd last week.
How easy is that bottom to see?

It announced itself with
a flippin lightning bolt. How can it be any easier?

They always do that in some way, sometimes
with a drop in volume or some other obvious signal.

How do you detect the "panic" in the buy or sell? Just by the
size of the move in relation to previous trading?

The same definition as with a cloud. When all the primary
variables reside within the complex realm at the same time.

For falling stocks

Always at or near 50% off price, and following a slope of
minus one that steadily ...accelerates, and extends over
a 'complex' time frame between day traders and longs, about
ten to twenty days. And one good clue the system is
acting naturally, and not being disguised,

is the false
bottom which almost always occurs half way down.

When all variables are midway between their opposite extremes
in possible behavior.

These values, and subsequent behavior, are all pyschologically
driven.

The news is such that no one can really figure out what
it means, but they know it's important. And voila, the charts
of asti and fmd etc is what you get. Since this is a naturally
evolved or universal pattern, you can learn to trust it to
behave as you expect it too. It shows you the bottom, just
trust it and give it a couple or three days for a fifteen day
pattern. Shorter or longer bottoms are proportional to the
overall pattern length it seem

So, middle of the "trading range"...or not?

Yes, the middle of the practical range as observed
in operation at any given time. Think of it this way.
If the change is so small, or so large, that it gives
us a good idea of the internal situation, then it
is near one extreme or the other and is NOT complex.

And this applies even more so to the intangibles like
the news or upcoming events where no quantification
is really possible. With news events and such, average
wouldn't be just another typical news event.
It would be a HUGE event, but one that only introduces
uncertainty so that no one can really tell what the
effect will be, only that it will be large.

And the panic selling/buying begins.

I only deal with the falling patterns as they typically
act as if everything is halved.

Panic buying takes the
form of doubling. It's too fast in the upward direction, by
the time you find it, you've missed it.
But the falling ones give you plenty of time to find
them about halfway down and watch them for a while
before they hit the critical 45% percent fall in price.

In theory it should be 50% plus or minus, but the one
thing the market does best is anticipate. Most
seem to stop just short of 50% fall in price.
The disguised ones often fall to 60% off.
Even then the bounce usually bails you out fine.

Number of iterations, or average lot size is important.

The more the better. The falling knife patterns are
in every way a sign of a stock about to go belly up.
As the iterations are ususally just a few, giving a
HUGE hint as to who is doing the selling.

A large number of iterations means the little guys are
selling I believe.

That alone is a big clue as to the future
of the company. If only the little guys are shaken out
that means the insiders have decided to stay
even after hearing the news. So the slope and number
of iterations is crucial.

Would you overlay fundamental charts on technical charts?
Or are you talking about some specific representational techniques
from chaos theory? Are you looking at anything more than price
and volume?

Looking at the way price and volume changes after some important
event takes place. Does the effect accelerate over time, snowball, so
that the behavior must find a limit where everyone has sold that's
going to?

The three primary variables of a chart pattern are of course
price, volume and the transient length.

OK, we're up to three inputs...I guarantee you there are more
for stock analysis in general, but for your purposes these MIGHT
suffice (this is now starting to look a little like what technical
analysts call "stochastics" or "oscillators")...

Which is the length
the disturbance driving the system from equilibrium lasts.

"Jack Hershey" used to say that you could detect LACK
of "equilibrium" when trading volume went DOWN (buyers and
sellers could not "agree"); this would signal a turning point in
the trading, and you'd wait for the next move on higher
volume to determine the direction and trade that way...

For a short period at the top or bottom I've seen that many times.

When you see volume drop off to nothing, and in the midst of
an otherwise highly volatile period, which edge states always
are, bird flocking essentially sets in.

Just like a flock gliding along, and the volume steadily declining
to almost nothing, and suddenly some 'whistle' goes off
..say a single large buy or an opening bell, and the flock
turns on a dime and the volume explodes.

But that is called chaos with order, or even a Levy Flight, wildly
bouncing/searching between a rather narrow gap for a short period.
Either way it signals to me that an edge state is AT the transition
point. If it's high then...the bubble bursts. If low, jump on, the rides
about to start.

And this effect makes it hard to stay with a stock for those
two or three days while at the bottom. You see the volume
taper off when you expect it to rebound, and its scary thinking
the bottom is going to drop out. But you have to have faith
in that its signaling what you're really looking for.

A really prime example would be smbl from a couple of weeks
ago. They pre-released some numbers early, ONLY the bad news
ahead of the quarterly ( I love that) that said revenue was way
off, like a 60% drop. Then at the quarterly said it was just a one time
charge and in fact they just had their best year ever, expect
30% growth yada yada.....cha ching.

I bought smbl at 5.1 and sold at 6 the next day, was so proud of myself.
Look at it now...I just want to scream sometimes.

Defining the complex realm is highly subjective, as is
complexity science in general.

Oh, I don't like the sound of that, don't like it at all...

I felt the same way, I was brought up with all the same physics
and math as you. Loved it all, but Nature just doesn't let us
see her beauty in that way.

When uncertainty is at a /maximum/ is when nature shows her fundamental
properties.

......here comes a rant <g

Objective reductionism is all about the search for ...certainty... in
some way or another. The opposite of what is needed to see
Nature and her universal creative process.

...when any system is persistantly poised at the union or edge between
it's opposite extemes in possibility,

then the sytem begins hill climbing
it begins evolving and self organizing.

The impetus for spontaneous
order emerges from complete and total system-wide randomness.
Or uncertainty. However you wish to call it. The Second Law provides
the randomness or food for self organization and evolution of BOTH
the physical and living worlds.

This is true for ....

a cloud
neither static or chaotic
neither water or vapor dominates

a society
neither static or chaotic
neither rules or freedom dominates
but an unstable uquilibrium between the two
called the dynamic realm, or simply a fluid.

a market
when neither buyer or seller dominate
the system self tunes to the optimun
as if by magic. With Adam Smith-like
invisible hands which emerge from system
components that act with..'trembling hands'
or edge state uncertainty.

genius
neither static or chaotic
neither knowledge or imagination dominates
but both at simultaneous maximums.

an emotion
neither instinct or senses dominate

a universe
neither static or chaotic attractors dominate
neither gravity or cosmic acceleration.

evolution
neither static/little changing behavior or chaotic/random behavior
dominates
neither genetics or natural selection dominates
but both in balance.

wisdom
neither system specific opposite dominates
neither science or religion

but when one can't tell...when both and neither
...then wisdom emerges.

creation
neither male or female
but at the union of opposite extremes.
when two people become one.

And a hundred others....all disciplines in fact.

You see don't you?

All these paradigms describing the ultimate source of our
reality and creation have another more common name.

Love!

The dynamic state called edge of chaos, is responsible for the spontaneous
emergence of all order in the physical, biological and even
intellectual/spiritual realms.

The math is clear on this, Love is the answer,

the point at which opposite
extremes
overlap...the complex realm...where uncertainty is at a maximum
defines the solution to any and all real world problems.

Find that transition point, the point of maximum system uncertainty
for any given system, and you've found the ideal system structure
or solution for that system.

Thanks for reading, hope you make money.

I'm posting all this
for no other reason that I need some good Karma.

...when any system is persistantly poised at the union or edge between
it's opposite extemes in possibility,

Minima and maxima are always zero and infinity, respectively...right?