|
Post by sportsrancho on Jan 5, 2017 10:44:19 GMT -5
The bottom line is we are not getting delisted.
They would RS the stock before that happened. And they already have the votes. I hate RS splits too. If I was someone who didn't have a position and I felt like a RS was coming. I'd wait till after the split and it got shorted to 1/2 is value and then buy all I could.
I'm just holding and spreading the word about Afrezza:-)
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 5, 2017 11:57:36 GMT -5
surplusvalue I'd still say Einstein was wrong on quantum mechanics. It wasn't that he missed it because of simply not thinking of it within the context that would have exposed it. He was fully aware of the theory and context and more capable than most of understanding it, and simply rejected it. Indeed I would not characterize Newton as being wrong with his theory of gravity, it was merely an incomplete understanding. He did not reject special relativity after being presented with a paper explaining it. I had presumed he meant Einstein based upon the context. Einstein wasnt wrong i.e there is no "right or wrong" because there are elements of indeterminacy and interference both subjective and objective ones simultaneously represented more accurately by probability functions... just as there is never a complete anything;that's Heisenberg' point that there is always incompleteness as a ground of all our knowledge. This is part of the paradox he speaks of and why he says the kind of knowlege we have is due to the "kind of beings we cant help being." Not a matter of simple rejection but again related to the context of his own framework. Einstein was unwilling to accept the conditions of probability "G-d doesnt play dice" since within his framework the important constants couldnt allow for it. Frame of reference, yes, but the constants were not probabilities. And Newton himself recognized this condition of incompleteness with respect to gravity. We could measure its effects through our understanding of force and mass but we still couldnt explain what it was. In the end Newton saw his physics as a basis for the proof of the existance of G-d. How could just the right proportion of particles with the just right mass under the just right conditions of motion allow matter to cohere under the condition of gravity. Gravity as "action at a distance" was difficult to accept by others and thats why Newton was accused of bringing in occult forces in to physics. The accusation was not without merit since Newton spent most of his time focused on alchemy (trying to turn base metals into gold)...sort of what what we try to do when we invest in the stock market Read the Heisenberg carefully if interested and I think you may see what I'm saying about the problematic character of the language you are using to describe conditions of epistemology (knowlege) in general and scientific knowledge in particular belonging to the various "schools of physics" .( It's a fairly difficult read, even if one has a background in physics and its history. The implications and nuances are not easily grasped especially in one sitting). As far as an analogy with MNKD is concerned, which got us all off on this tangent in the first place it would be more appropriate to relate this to Heisenberg rather than Einstein. Nothing clearer to me that investing in MNKD has been predominately full of indeterminacy and not much else. Thankfully no one mentioned chaos theory. Granted it was college, a long time ago when dirt was young, when I last studied quantum in a physical chemistry class... but Einstein rejected indeterminacy, which we now have ample evidence exists in the physical world. If your argument is that no one in science can ever be wrong because of the limitations of knowledge then so be it. Science doesn't impose tests on individuals as that isn't reproducible, so I guess we are free to evaluate people as we wish with terms defined outside of the realm of science. You do make me feel better about myself now that you've convinced me I'm never wrong, merely expressing the inevitable incompleteness of knowledge... though I suspect your epistemological argument would not have convinced my physical chem professor if I had neglected indeterminacy on the exams we had Whether Al was another Einstein... or perhaps Schrödinger... I often do feel as if I'm waiting for someone to open the box to finally determine if the cat is dead.
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Jan 5, 2017 13:24:56 GMT -5
Einstein wasnt wrong i.e there is no "right or wrong" because there are elements of indeterminacy and interference both subjective and objective ones simultaneously represented more accurately by probability functions... just as there is never a complete anything;that's Heisenberg' point that there is always incompleteness as a ground of all our knowledge. This is part of the paradox he speaks of and why he says the kind of knowlege we have is due to the "kind of beings we cant help being." Not a matter of simple rejection but again related to the context of his own framework. Einstein was unwilling to accept the conditions of probability "G-d doesnt play dice" since within his framework the important constants couldnt allow for it. Frame of reference, yes, but the constants were not probabilities. And Newton himself recognized this condition of incompleteness with respect to gravity. We could measure its effects through our understanding of force and mass but we still couldnt explain what it was. In the end Newton saw his physics as a basis for the proof of the existance of G-d. How could just the right proportion of particles with the just right mass under the just right conditions of motion allow matter to cohere under the condition of gravity. Gravity as "action at a distance" was difficult to accept by others and thats why Newton was accused of bringing in occult forces in to physics. The accusation was not without merit since Newton spent most of his time focused on alchemy (trying to turn base metals into gold)...sort of what what we try to do when we invest in the stock market Read the Heisenberg carefully if interested and I think you may see what I'm saying about the problematic character of the language you are using to describe conditions of epistemology (knowlege) in general and scientific knowledge in particular belonging to the various "schools of physics" .( It's a fairly difficult read, even if one has a background in physics and its history. The implications and nuances are not easily grasped especially in one sitting). As far as an analogy with MNKD is concerned, which got us all off on this tangent in the first place it would be more appropriate to relate this to Heisenberg rather than Einstein. Nothing clearer to me that investing in MNKD has been predominately full of indeterminacy and not much else. Thankfully no one mentioned chaos theory. Granted it was college, a long time ago when dirt was young, when I last studied quantum in a physical chemistry class... but Einstein rejected indeterminacy, which we now have ample evidence exists in the physical world. If your argument is that no one in science can ever be wrong because of the limitations of knowledge then so be it. Science doesn't impose tests on individuals as that isn't reproducible, so I guess we are free to evaluate people as we wish with terms defined outside of the realm of science. You do make me feel better about myself now that you've convinced me I'm never wrong, merely expressing the inevitable incompleteness of knowledge... though I suspect your epistemological argument would not have convinced my physical chem professor if I had neglected indeterminacy on the exams we had Whether Al was another Einstein... or perhaps Schrödinger... I often do feel as if I'm waiting for someone to open the box to finally determine if the cat is dead. Very funny, but only because you've misconstrued what I referred to in Heisenberg's arguments (not mine). You're "right", its been a long time for you and it evidently shows. Let me simplify it. Your discussion with kastanes, in which I intervened, you both made use of the traditional notions of truth /certainty/right and wrong which have long since passed (although still held to by the public.) As well so have the strict delineations of objective and subjective. Its been replaced with "degrees of probability" influenced by quantum theory, so that no one is wrong (or right) in the traditional sense of the meaning of these terms. Evidence is understood in terms of degrees of probability; and probability arises as a condition due to both the incompleteness and indeterminacy of the conditions of our manner of obtaining information about the world especially at the atomic level. Its not incompleteness in some more general sense that's relevant here. But that doesnt mean anything goes either in science or outside of it even when describing or evaluating other people. It's not you can say whatever you like; as if everything were completely relative (that assertion is merely the other side of proclaiming certainty as an opposite side on the same coin). And again the point about Einstein's "rejection" of quantum mechanics is that his rejection is itself rooted in the context of the framework of his own work i.e that his knowledge as is ours is contextually based and hence limited and its his entire framework that precluded the acceptance of probablity as applied to his constants. And at the same time it is precisely this framework that made his contribution to physics possible (and as well his contribution to humanism and moral inquiry). And the argument, as presented by Heisenberg is not just an epistemological one but rather is linked to these ontological ones about conditions and frameworks that act as both ground and limit to the epistemic ones. That's the reason why knowledge can change and grow as it exceeds its own previous limitations. And why is all this relevant? Well just consider the various posts on this board and you'll find that various assertions predictions etc seem to be made presuming as if one could say anything at all, or that all opinions are equal, or equally "right", or that only one view is "correct" or that there is only one authority "investopedia?" etc. We often forget that we do have a measure of evidence making use of a good understanding of degrees of probability. A recent discussion in point involves the extent to which a reverse split would have the same probable eventual consequences as delisting given the present conditions of MNKD.(consequences that many have not considered a RS would would also entail). Hence my request for some argument "evidence" from others to provide a positive explanation for a RS or some counter-evidence to the probability that a RS would be as bad if not worse for shareholder value as delisting. So our discussion here is really not just a joke to be made fun of, is it? .
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 5, 2017 13:55:19 GMT -5
surplusvalue... Most every one accepts that no outcome in investing is certain... and that doesn't need to be couched in some idea of quantum mechanics, which so far cannot be demonstrated to break the causal relationships of cash flow. Creating unfounded false hope in people (perhaps even for goals of pumping and dumping), is something I'd characterize as "wrong" in an ethical sense. (Not ascribing motives to anyone in particular on this board.) But real people lose real money when they listen to bad advice. I reserve the right to point out that many optimistic opinions about MNKD have in the past turned out to be "wrong"... in the conventional, perhaps outdated meaning of the word.
|
|
|
Post by surplusvalue on Jan 5, 2017 16:24:33 GMT -5
surplusvalue ... Most every one accepts that no outcome in investing is certain... and that doesn't need to be couched in some idea of quantum mechanics, which so far cannot be demonstrated to break the causal relationships of cash flow. Creating unfounded false hope in people (perhaps even for goals of pumping and dumping), is something I'd characterize as "wrong" in an ethical sense. (Not ascribing motives to anyone in particular on this board.) But real people lose real money when they listen to bad advice. I reserve the right to point out that many optimistic opinions about MNKD have in the past turned out to be "wrong"... in the conventional, perhaps outdated meaning of the word. Given some of the pronouncements I have seen appear on this board, both of the doom and everything is roses kind and even in between (the "Sanofi is coming back" or the resurgence of buyout talk being the most recent iterations of this) I cant agree with your first statement as many are communicated with an air of unshakeable certainty. As to the second statement about quantum mechanics or any physics reference I didnt raise it but rather responded to a discussion already underway. With regard to the question of the moral implications of peoples statements on the board I agree with you both in terms of those who either paint a unrealistically positive picture or an unrealistically negative one. However,anyone who relies on other peoples "advice" on a forum for their investments without critically thinking for themselves have to bear most of the responsibility for any loss. This still wouldnt obviate the responsibility of someone elses contribution to it by having made either pumping or fud statements as you might call them. Given the content of your posts on this board I think we are pretty much on the same page, perspective wise.
|
|