*ugh* so this is cohesiveness. What’s within and a part of this active and responsive process _is_ what allows an object to be an object, a number to be number, a thing to be thing. It creates (parenthesis) around things, “center surround cells”, Derivitive of Gaussians / Mexican Hat wavelet, or just a Gaussian kernel sitting there in its bell curviness, letting the edges fade off into the background. It’s a matter of scale and is participatory. We measure the processes which may snap them into focus as we measure, the process of measuring itself creating the phase locking that we seem to be seeing happening elsewhere.

*ugh* so this is
[read full article]
 

The P/E metric _was_ the gold standard back then but it’s based on a growth model. Markets have been on a growth model since about the 1970s I think, assuming constant progress, constant growth. Projected earnings. It’s a shame it’s considered Fundamentals because it’s not fundamental. That’s why I think a robustness metric of _some_ kind needs to exist. But I don’t know what that would be. Let’s say you have old dependable bottle-cap maker. It’s p/e ratio is stable. It’s steady. It’s not growing nor shrinking. But as it stands, that’s not the kind of thing people want to invest in. Market’s geared for growth. It’s hard to shift our way of thinking but I think we’ll have to. Edit or delete this

 Well, those were metrics
[read full article]