YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 🔢 Dal Numero di Avogadro al Mercato: ✨ La Struttura Nascosta della Realtà 🔮

🔢 Dal Numero di Avogadro al Mercato: ✨ La Struttura Nascosta della Realtà 🔮 — Transcript

by Luca Serleto Visionary Lab · 9,880 words · 1,400 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Okay, I hope I won't ruin your dinner
0:06with the numbers that will stick in
0:09your stomach all evening. Now, however,
0:12however, however, as you can clearly
0:15see written here: the weather forecasts
0:19are a bit like the things that we are
0:22doing this evening. That is, if we have
0:25to predict the weather, with all the
0:28difficulties we have, and we've managed
0:30to make weather forecasts, why not make
0:33the same predictions about trading? In
0:36other words, about what the future
0:38holds for any of the assets that we are
0:40currently analyzing. In essence, this
0:45poor wretch known as Confucius also
0:46used to say exactly this: you must
0:48study the past if you truly want to be
0:50able to predict the future. Now,
0:51Confucius is certainly not the last
0:54idiot you might meet on the street, so
0:56by observing the universe, he had
0:58somehow managed to understand certain
1:00things. So we'll also take a bit of
1:03inspiration from him. Starting and
1:05ending this discussion, we should talk
1:09about numbers of course, but first
1:12about the universe, what are we trying
1:15to do? We have understood that the
1:18universe is a sort of large rotating
1:20wheel and everything that is attached
1:25to the universe are small cogs that
1:27therefore, in order to be all attached
1:30together to this gigantic cog, must
1:32have a characteristic. Just as the
1:35large cog turns, all of the smaller
1:37cogs turn along with it. Look, for
1:40example, in this simulation, the large
1:44cog is what the ancients called the
1:47chakra, that is, the wheel of the
1:49universe. The universe makes only one
1:52revolution, it starts and ends with
1:55time making only one revolution. It
1:58makes two revolutions, it makes only
2:02one that began 13.7 billion years ago
2:06and will end when the universe is 18
2:10billion years old. This is what physics
2:13says. If it is true that the photon has
2:17a mass of about 10 ^ 54 ^ -54 kg, that
2:22is 0.53054, a very small mass. If the
2:29photon has mass, in the oscillation of
2:33the photon, the photon after a while
2:36stops and it takes a long time to make
2:40it stop, 10 ^ 18, that is a gigantic
2:43number of years. We have done 13.7.
2:48This big wheel that the ancients called
2:51chakra is connected to many other
2:53wheels. Each of us is like a wheel, but
2:57we are all connected to one thing, to
3:00the basic frequency. The big wheel
3:03could be still or it could also be
3:05turning, we will never realize it, but
3:07all the wheels that are connected
3:09together turn at submultiples of the
3:11same frequency because that's how it
3:13works. But you can see something more.
3:17You can see that the four dark wheels
3:20turn counterclockwise and the lighter
3:23wheel in the middle turns clockwise,
3:25that is, the number of rotations, the
3:28momentum of a certain number of small
3:31wheels and of another number of small
3:33wheels in the end must be zero because
3:36the universe costs nothing. The
3:39universe was created at zero cost. The
3:41universe was created at the instant in
3:43which matter was created on one side
3:45and antimatter on the other at zero
3:47cost. You see that in this simple
3:52simulation the universe, as if we were
3:57seeing it in two dimensions because it
4:00has a plane with little wheels that
4:03turn, basically has one thing that
4:06never changes, its symmetry. There is a
4:09center of symmetry that is there in the
4:10middle that always remains the same.
4:12That is, many little things that move
4:14to the right and many other little
4:16things with an equal mass that move to
4:18the left. It is called CPT symmetry,
4:21charge parity and time. This thing here
4:24allows us to say something fundamental
4:27that we can recalculate immediately in
4:29trading. Everything that happens is
4:33connected to something else. Everything
4:36that happens has its own repetitive
4:39frequency because the wheels repeat
4:42themselves over time. Over 10 to the
4:45power of 18 GB years, billions of years
4:48, the smallest wheel will repeat itself
4:51billions and billions and billions of
4:54times. So an asset that is made up of
4:57many parameters and each parameter is a
5:00cog, rest assured because it is written
5:03like this, the universe is made like
5:06this. There are many cogs that are
5:08destined to always repeat themselves
5:10with a precise frequency. Many cogs
5:13that in any case have a frequency that
5:15is one a submultiple of the other or a
5:18multiple of the other. So what does
5:22this mean? This means that if we are
5:25aware of how these little gears are
5:26arranged, we are able to identify their
5:28frequency in a perfect manner. So, when
5:30a cog has made a turn, I know it, I
5:33have to know it, I can know it because
5:35the universe is made like this and if
5:38it is made like this, it can do it. So,
5:41the universe is like a big circle,
5:46right? It seems to us that the stars
5:48turn, that we even get pissed off at
5:50certain times, basically, but I can
5:52assure you that they turn with the same
5:55frequency or with a submultiple, and we
5:57will see later, of the frequency of the
5:59universe. So, with this particular view
6:02of things, we are able to say and
6:04answer the question: is it actually
6:07possible to predict the future? The
6:10answer is yes, end. How to do it? That
6:13is a completely different story, but
6:14the fact that we can say yes means that
6:16we are certainly not here just to waste
6:18our time. Because I could have told you
6:20no, physics doesn't allow us to do this
6:22, so let's all go home, who cares.
6:24Instead, we're here precisely to
6:26understand how the hell this
6:29mechanism works and we need to do some
6:31numbers. So, some of you will know what
6:34I'm saying, some of you won't. I think
6:38those who do know it know it but they
6:40don't know it well because they were
6:42taught it in school and so they wasted
6:45time. Why? Because Italian schools
6:48teach very badly and are one of the
6:50best schools in the world. Imagine the
6:52others. So, we have a problem. Before
6:57we start trading, we need to understand
7:00why we decided to instruct the program
7:04that allows us to predict the future of
7:07assets, and why we told that same
7:10program to execute certain actions?
7:14Here it says why we use the number e,
7:17which is 2.71 82 818 and who knows how
7:21many other digits. After the number e,
7:24that is, Euler's number or as some call
7:26it, Napier's number, it's a very
7:28strange number. You see? Yes, it's
7:32calculated like this, it's the sum of 1
7:35/n factorial. N factorial means this.
7:39For example, four factorial is equal to
7:434*3*2*1, and seven factorial means 7*6*
7:475*4*3*2*1. So, if I calculate the sum
7:51of all those values, like 1 over n
7:54factorial, 1 over n factorial and so on
7:57, I eventually obtain this number,
7:59which is 2.7182818. However, why is
8:02this specific number so incredibly
8:04important? Because there's one of the
8:07most beautiful formulas in the world
8:10that relates Euler's number e or
8:12Napier's number, as some call it, to pi
8:15. Look, e raised to the power of
8:20something multiplied by I. i is √ -1.
8:25The root -1 is a and something that
8:27can't be done and therefore it's an
8:29imaginary number. But this square root
8:33of -1 and this Euler thing was drawn
8:36like this. And elev b*i is cosine of b
8:40+ i*sine of b. The sine of b is
8:43something imaginary, so we are not even
8:45able to see it at all. When we write e
8:49is = pi ^ i which is equal to + 1, + 1
8:56= 0, it means that the part above is
8:59cosine of pi which is equal to -1 + i*
9:01sine of pi which is equal to 0. So all
9:04the imaginary goes to hell and the only
9:07thing that appears is the cosine of b
9:10which is equal to -1. So e to the power
9:15of pi to the power of i is -1. -1 + 1
9:19is 0 and Euler was right. What do we
9:24care about this damn number i? Why do
9:27we have to bother an imaginary world? I
9:30imaginary. Every time we multiply a
9:34number like the one above by i, it is
9:37as though we have created a rotation
9:40operator; in other words, we are
9:42currently rotating that which we see as
9:46it rotates. You see, you can see it
9:49here. This is the cosine of x and this
9:53is I*sine of x. You see that it's a
9:57right triangle. When I multiply all
10:00this by i, everything moves and becomes
10:02a rotation of that figure there. A
10:05rotation means there are chakras in the
10:08middle. Ah, that's why I put the number
10:11i, because I need it to understand how
10:13the universe works, as if it were a
10:15rotation. And here we need to
10:19understand something fundamental, the
10:23connection of the number of Neper with
10:26e and it's linked to logarithms because
10:29there are logarithms to the base e that
10:32we'll use tonight. Logarithms to the
10:35base i and e weren't invented by Neper,
10:38as this little game here says. The
10:40Babylonians invented it 7,000 years ago
10:43. Then we forgot about them and Neper
10:47rediscovered logarithms to the base,
10:49but it was an ancient ancestral memory
10:52of mathematics that existed between the
10:55Tigris and the Euphrates. And this is
11:00useful for financial numbers because,
11:02regarding these financial figures, who
11:05was Neper? Neper was basically a priest
11:09, but he had a passion for trading, but
11:13we are in the 1600s, and he wanted to
11:18calculate bank interest. So, if I have
11:21one lira of interest per month, the
11:24first month I have my capital, the
11:27second month I have the capital plus
11:30one lira and the second month and the
11:33third month, the fourth month I need a
11:36formula that describes this thing. And
11:39since after a while these numbers
11:41became extremely large, quite huge,
11:43like 1 million, 2 million, 3 million
11:46lira, and so on, logarithms make these
11:48numbers smaller, which means that they
11:50can be handled much better. Euler's
11:54number implies that the compound
12:00interest formula can be utilized in
12:03this specific manner, and it can be
12:05applied in a very simple way indeed.
12:10Euler's number is also equal to this
12:12strange thing here. 1 + 1/n multiplied
12:16by n. That is, if I put in a very large
12:20number n, then I get 2.718 and so on
12:23and so forth. Try putting 100,000 and 1
12:27/100,000 in there, all raised to the
12:30power of 100,000, and you get 2.71 and
12:33a little bit more. This number is so
12:36strange. But why does it always come
12:38out like this? What is this number?
12:40What are its characteristics? It is a
12:44number that has a fundamental
12:46characteristic and raised to the power
12:48of x, whatever x is. Its first
12:51derivative, that is, the way in which
12:55this function changes over time, is a
12:58wonderful thing. It is the only
13:01function in the universe that over time
13:03, the only mathematical function in the
13:06universe that its first derivative is
13:08always the same. The derivative is the
13:11representation of how this thing
13:13changes over time. This thing changes
13:15over time like the formula itself and
13:18there's only one number in the universe
13:21that does it and holy, this is a
13:24magic number, it's a number that's like
13:27pi. That's why Euler's formula was
13:29beautiful, because it connected e to pi
13:32and to the number i which is la√ -1.
13:36It's one of the most beautiful formulas
13:38in the universe. We will use this
13:44number, so we must understand the
13:46reasons why this sort of thing exists
13:48in trading. And basically Nepero says
13:53that a certain quantity n, you know,
13:57your capital is equal to the interest
14:01on the initial capital n0 which is
14:04multiplied by e raised to something
14:08which is time. That is, like a small
14:12crumb that you have initially increases
14:16over time. That's how they worked with
14:20interest. But this formula was
14:23discovered later not only to be used to
14:27do this triviality, but it was
14:29discovered that it was used to do a lot
14:33of other things, for example, bacterial
14:36growth, uh, bacteria. Not only the
14:39growth of bacteria, but also the way in
14:42which the cells begin to divide
14:44themselves. 2 4 8 16 tun tun tun there
14:48is a term there t kt is a constant you
14:51look at what it will be and t is the
14:55time, so you start from n0 = 2, two
14:58cells, then it becomes 4 8 But at what
15:02speed? With e ^ x v exponentially it
15:06works like this. But we can also
15:10calculate how a capacitor discharges.
15:13In this way the lower part will be the
15:16charge of the capacitor which will be
15:18equal to the smallest charge that can
15:21be had multiplied by something that has
15:23a sign of time minus-t because when the
15:26capacitor discharges, do you know what
15:29a capacitor is? It is two plates and
15:31you load current, loads on the right,
15:33loads on the left, loads loads loads
15:35loads. At a certain point between the
15:38spark is formed and the spark
15:41discharges the capacitor and the
15:44discharge is precisely the Nepero
15:46equation with the minus sign because
15:49things are going in a direction, let's
15:53say, and decreasing, not increasing. So
15:58the activity continues, someone who
16:01establishes a continuous activity. We
16:05have flipped on this formula. We will
16:08see in a second why we should even care
16:11about this at all. So continuous
16:14activity is something total divided by
16:19something the smallest thing that there
16:22is that increases at this rate here or
16:25decreases at this rate here.
16:27Essentially this is the formula that
16:30we're going to take. Look what appeared
16:36here. A very particular formula. 2 elev
16:42pi = 10*e elev -1/8. By performing a
16:48couple of calculations, we realized
16:51that this formula is the best one
16:54currently in existence; we discovered
16:56it ourselves, and it is the best
16:59formula on the market that relates pi
17:02to the number e as an approximation.
17:05The best formula in the universe that
17:08doesn't involve imaginary numbers,
17:11let's forget about them, it simplifies
17:14things, but it's a formula that has
17:16this structure and look, 2 raised to
17:19something equals 10, which is a number
17:22that is this n plus 0. For now, we
17:27don't know what it is, we don't care,
17:29we don't care because on another
17:32occasion we'll talk about this formula,
17:34but this formula that we found by doing
17:37these calculations is the best
17:39approximation existing in the world
17:42between e and pi. What does this mean?
17:44It means that if I can find this type
17:46of approximation, it can't be a
17:48coincidence. And I want to emphasize
17:51something fundamental to you, because
17:53this is the reason why we use awareness
17:56. So I show you this formula, and you
17:58might say it is just a formula, who
18:00cares, but you should try to understand
18:01the true meaning of all its parts. What
18:04the hell is 1/8a? One-eighth is that we
18:08are in a universe made up of 8anti. The
18:12number 8 comes into these 8. All the
18:15most important formulas in physics, in
18:18quantum physics, have a certain point
18:21where this damn eight comes out, which
18:24we don't know what it is. I just
18:27pointed it out to you because this
18:30number will haunt us tonight. For
18:34instance, consider how the radioactive
18:38decay time of radium follows a rule
18:41just like this, and it possesses a
18:45specific decay time of 13 seconds. This
18:50number 13 haunts us, we find it again
18:52today, we will find it again in trading
18:55. And now I have to tell you that there
19:00is another number and we should put
19:01these two numbers together. Avogadro's
19:03number. Who the hell was Avogadro?
19:06Avogadro was a chemist who said that
19:10the number of particles contained in a
19:15mole of carbon, which is 12 g, is
19:19exactly this: 6.22*10 ^ 23. I would
19:23like to point out that this is almost
19:27the same because sooner or later all
19:31problems come to a head. Poor Avogadro
19:35knew that someone would bother him
19:38saying, "But it's not the same, it's
19:41almost the same, are you really sure
19:44you're right?" The problem is that's
19:48what they teach us in school.
19:51Avogadro's number is the number of
19:55atoms in 12g of carbon. If you have 16g
19:59of oxygen, there's the same number of
20:02atoms. If you have 1g of hydrogen,
20:05there's the same number of atoms. Um,
20:11how do you count atoms, which are a
20:13gigantic number? 6.02*10 ^ 23, that is,
20:1723 zeros after the decimal point. You
20:22can do it experimentally, but it's
20:24clear that experimentally you have to
20:26settle for almost the same. So, this
20:30Avogadro's number is not the one
20:32written in the chemistry book, but it's
20:35all this other series of things that
20:38are written here: that is, in
20:40biochemistry, where there is the
20:44quantification of biological molecules
20:47such as proteins and enzymes to analyze
20:49cellular functions and concentrations,
20:52in classical physics, in thermodynamics
20:54and statistical mechanics. Calculate
20:57the number of particles of ideal gases
21:01P*V = NRT. The gas law N is the number
21:04of molecules of moles, let's say, that
21:07is, grams divided by the molecular
21:10weight of something, but R is the gas
21:12constant and the gas constant R is
21:15equal to Avogadro's number multiplied
21:18by another constant which is
21:20Boltzmann's. The Boltzmann constant is
21:23part of the entropy formula which, as
21:26you know, I bother you with entropy
21:28every day. Well, in quantum physics it
21:32is the bridge between molecules, small
21:36things and gigantic things. This
21:38mysterious Avogadro's number is always
21:41involved. In astrophysics, in cosmology
21:45, do you know how many galaxies there
21:47are in the universe? You can't count
21:49them precisely, but we know that there
21:51are 10 ^ 23. Oh, for crying out loud,
21:53how strange. In electronics it is the
21:57number of electrons that pass in one
22:00second developing a current. But then
22:03this Avogadro's number is something
22:06more, that is, it is the number of
22:09objects that exist in a unit of
22:11space-time. Anything. But this means
22:14that the universe is a fractal and it
22:16means that we have understood in every
22:18little box of the fractal, in every
22:20little brick, how many little pieces
22:22there are. In this scientific article,
22:29they talk about the fact that the
22:32Earth's gravitational constant is
22:35actually a submultiple of the avocado
22:38number. In explaining what the
22:42gravitational constant is, inside the
22:44gravitational constant there is the
22:46avocado number. So, for crying out loud
22:49, it is clear that the avocado number
22:51is something very important, so it is
22:53calculated experimentally. You see?
22:56There are about twenty works there with
22:58the bibliography and they all calculate
23:01this number of avocados using different
23:03methods, more or less what it is. Then
23:06there will be a gentleman here who says
23:09something that I will read to you later
23:12, okay? This is a fairly modern
23:15scientific work that we must take into
23:18account. I remind you that the avocado
23:23number must be even. This is something
23:25that chemists do not They know. When I
23:27asked students during an exam whether
23:29Avogadro's number was even or odd,
23:31while they were at the blackboard, I
23:34would then turn toward the board of
23:36examiners to see how the other two
23:38colleagues who were with me would react
23:40. Faced with such a question, they
23:41would look down at the floor because
23:43they did not know the answer themselves
23:44. Avogadro's number must be even. How
23:49do you know it's even if it's 6.02
23:52billion digits times 10 ^ 23? Because
23:56otherwise the second law of
23:58thermodynamics goes to hell. Look how
24:00it works. There's a chemical reaction.
24:02This could be acetone. If R1 and R2 are
24:06equal, CH3 CH3. This is acetone. Let's
24:10say it's methylketone. R1, R2 are
24:12different. I want to transform it into
24:14alcohol, I have to reduce it. To reduce
24:16it, I need a hydride ion, H-. The H-can
24:21pass from below or from above. If it
24:25passes from above, I get the product on
24:27the left. If it passes from below, I
24:29get the product on the Right. A carbon
24:31atom bonded to the same things. Are
24:35this guy here and that guy there the
24:37same? It's a carbon atom bonded to the
24:40same four things, to a less charged
24:43oxygen, to a hydrogen, to an R1 and to
24:45an R2. Are they the same? Answer: No,
24:48they are two different molecules. Why?
24:52Because they are optically active. In
24:54other words, these molecules do not
24:55have a plane of symmetry. Since they do
24:57not have a plane of symmetry, one is
24:59the mirror image of the other. If I
25:01take the two mirror images and
25:04superimpose them, they do not overlap,
25:07they are two different things. If I
25:11have a molecule shaped like this, it
25:13becomes a drug that assists me, for
25:15example, in order to make the physical
25:17pain go away eventually. The other
25:20could be a very powerful poison. Here,
25:22you understand the difference between
25:25these two things. In order for this
25:29reaction to take place, there must be
25:31an even number of molecules that react,
25:34which means that there must be even
25:36molecules, because an odd number of
25:38molecules cannot react at all. What
25:40does that mean? That a single hydride
25:42with Acetone cannot react with ketone
25:45because an asymmetric molecule would be
25:48created from something that is
25:51completely symmetrical. The second law
25:54of thermodynamics says the opposite,
25:57that asymmetrical things spontaneously
26:00give rise to non-symmetrical things.
26:03The opposite cannot exist, unless I
26:04ensure that two molecules are always
26:06made to react together. Two are the
26:09dualities of the universe. So, one will
26:12give rise to this molecule that will
26:14rotate the plane of polarized light by
26:16-30 ° and the other that will rotate
26:19the plane of polarized light by + 30 °
26:21. The mixture then does not rotate in
26:24the plane of polarized light, so the
26:26mixture is not optically active. If we
26:29set aside the second law of
26:30thermodynamics, I am actually quite
26:32happy. But this implies that Avogadro's
26:34number has to be even; it cannot be odd
26:36, because if it were, the second law of
26:37thermodynamics would go completely to
26:39hell. Okay, now that we have understood
26:43all this, however, all this must be
26:47written in books and it is not written
26:51in books. So, what do we find written
26:56here? That the number Avogadro's number
27:00has to do with consciousness. Because
27:02if all of this is actually true, then
27:05we now know how the entire universe was
27:08constructed. Look how far I got it.
27:11Consciousness divides into two, boom,
27:14which divides into four, which divides
27:16into eight, which divides into eight.
27:19But it will not be possible to apply
27:23Avogadro's formula to this idea,
27:28Avogadro's number with Napier's formula
27:30. Like calculating the rising bank
27:34interest, we calculate how many times
27:37consciousness divides, because
27:39Avogadro's number tells you that it
27:42must be divided, that we must obtain a
27:45fractal number. The number of times
27:47that consciousness divides itself must
27:49always remain exactly the same. Because
27:51if the universe is a fractal, the small
27:55fits into the large, there are 100
27:58million galaxies, there are 100 million
28:01insects up, up in a smaller space-time.
28:04The number must always be the same,
28:06otherwise what kind of fractal is it?
28:10Well, here's a problem. But I look at
28:12these numbers because then I can't
28:14sleep at night. and I say Avogadro's
28:18number is 2 and 22*10 ^ 23. I take the
28:23logarithm to base 2 and it gives me a
28:26number 78.99. I say, look how strange,
28:3078.99. However, if Avogadro's number
28:34were 2.04 and not 2.022*10 ^ 23, I
28:39would have the logarithm of this number
28:41which is 2 ^ 79 precisely, that is a
28:44number of particles that is a multiple
28:47of two, because it is a precise power
28:50of two which would give me an even
28:52number and would be linked to how the
28:56universe is made. So, you want to see
28:59that in other words the number 279,
29:02that is a precise multiple of two, is
29:04the true Avogadro's number. The
29:08universe is divided into two, into four
29:11, into six, into eight. So this would
29:14be in perfect agreement with this
29:17situation. So, let's complicate things
29:21a little more for ourselves, then we'll
29:23simplify everything in one fell swoop.
29:26I took it. from a distance, huh. So, we
29:29know that 2 and 22*10 ^ 23 has the
29:33logarithm which is 78 and 99 which is
29:37then the approximation of 79. We know
29:41that instead, um, the logarithm of n
29:45which is 79 is equal to 2.04*10 ^ 23.
29:53But I look at this logarithm and when I
29:55say look it is as if you look at
29:57trading, you have to look at it with
30:00this awareness. How strange. I look at
30:03it and I say how strange if this
30:09logarithm were a little different, if
30:14it were um, 78.99, 99. Then in the end
30:22it becomes 6.30. 6.30 reminds me of
30:27another number. That's how I am, guys,
30:30I don't sleep at night. It reminds me
30:32of 6.28, but 68 is double 31. But
30:34couldn't it be that there is a number
30:37which is the logarithm of 2 raised to
30:40the power of 2 pi that is really 6.28
30:42and that as a logarithm would be 77.88?
30:48So, here we have three numbers. The
30:50logarithm of 77.88 which is 2 elev 2 pi
30:53, the logarithm of the probably true
30:56Avogadro's number which is 2 ^ 79 and a
30:59number that has nothing to do with it
31:02is what people think is Avogadro's
31:04number. Because 2 raised to 2 pi might
31:07be important to be something, since 2
31:09to the 2 pi, the universe is built upon
31:11pi, it is built upon the mathematical
31:13constant e. Those are the numbers that
31:16build the universe, not the rest. And
31:19then we have to put all these things
31:21together. And in putting all these
31:24things together perhaps we have
31:27understood what 2 raised to the power
31:29of 79 is, the true Avogadro's number,
31:32but what the hell is 2 elev 2 pi? Right
31:38now I remind you of what was written in
31:40that work I told you about, I'll read
31:42it to you later and here it says, look,
31:45Stop saying that the logarithm of the
31:47Vogadro number is 6.022 because 10 ^ 23
31:49because that's. The real one
31:52is 2.79 because that's in agreement
31:55with everything we know about the
31:58universe. Modern science says so. This
32:02stuff isn't in books yet. This stuff is
32:05published in scientific papers. My
32:07chemistry colleagues at the University
32:09of Pisa will need to win three or four
32:11more rigged competitions before they
32:13finally understand how things really
32:15work around here. And here we introduce
32:18the pain in the ass that's always mine,
32:20that is entropy. Entropy, which is the
32:24information that we look for in trading
32:27, is K, which is Boltzmann's constant,
32:31which depends on Avogadro's number
32:34multiplied by the logarithm of
32:37microstates. In a better expression,
32:42entropy is equal to K, which is also
32:45Boltzmann's constant, with a minus sign
32:49for chance added, which is the minus
32:52sign for the probability that an event
32:57will happen multiplied by logarithm of
32:59an event happening, that is, it means
33:02the logarithm of p raised to the power
33:05of p. The sum of all this will give me
33:08entropy. In the meantime, I added the
33:11minus sign. But why? Why? Because
33:15entropy is a measure of order, not a
33:19measure of disorder. So, in order to
33:22make the math add up, thermodynamicists
33:26had to put a minus sign in front: minus
33:29disorder, which is to say, they
33:32obtained order. This is what we will
33:34later discover. Writing these things in
33:38thermodynamics books, and then we
33:40realized something fundamental, that
33:44cross, that thing there with all those
33:47little numbers is the evideon, that is,
33:50how a photon is made, which is also how
33:54the universe is made. You see that it
33:57is made of eight octants, there are
34:00eight octants, four upstairs and four
34:02downstairs. This axis is 324 long. This
34:07axis is 243 long. Half of 243 is 121.5.
34:13Half of 324 is 162. 162 mimics the
34:20Fibonacci constant. 1.61 833 9 162 is
34:301.618. Okay? Okay. And I remind you
34:36that 162/121.5 equals 3/2. Okay, who
34:40cares. Look at the formula above. It's
34:44Bolsman's formula for charge to
34:46calculate the energy of a system. And I
34:49wrote Bolsman's formula delta energy
34:51equals-t delta s temperature times
34:54delta s which is the difference in
34:56entropy from one moment to the next
34:59which is equal, Bolsman says. A minus
35:03-3/2 times the temperature, times
35:05Bolsman's constant, times the logarithm
35:07of microstates. Where does Bolsman 3/2
35:10come from? It is simple: you know it,
35:13or if you do not, I will remind you of
35:15it. Energy is equal to kinetic energy,
35:18which equals 1/2 m V², where V is the
35:22velocity, specifically the velocity. 1/
35:252z is times Just one, multiply
35:30everything by three. Because there are
35:333 degrees of freedom in which energy
35:35can develop. So that's why it comes out
35:37as 3/2. I take that formula there, I
35:40put the videon numbers in it, which are
35:42the logarithm of life, the logarithm of
35:452 ^ 79. Because now I know 2 ^ 79 are
35:48the microstates. How can you be you? I
35:52can only be as many as I have the
35:54chances of being. And how many chances
35:57do I have? The lawyer's number 2 ^ 79
35:59tells me. Logarithm 2 ^ 79, multiplied
36:03by the temperature 0273.15 is the, and
36:07the temperature is absolute zero. KB*KB
36:12, the value of the Boltzmann constant,
36:16multiplied by something which is 162/
36:20121.5, 5, that is, as the evideon did,
36:24multiplied by 1 plus the golden ratio
36:29divided by 10, which is a little number
36:32that takes the Boltzmann constant and
36:34turns it into a pure number, end of the
36:37transmission, multiplied by 3/2, as he
36:39says. I do the math and get 2 ^ 2 pi
36:43with the calculated value of pi to 99
36:48to 999.999 999%. That's what 2 raised
36:54to the power of 2 plus is energy. And
36:58we have to take this into account.
37:00You'll see that we need this pain in
37:02the ass of this speech that we had here
37:04. I've filled this slide with words
37:09that I'll summarize for you in 5
37:11seconds, then the slide will go up on
37:14the web, you can watch it all again,
37:16study it thoroughly, understand that
37:19there are no tricks or deceptions. What
37:22does this say? That entropy is an
37:25emerging force from trading. Do you
37:29know what this means? That information,
37:32which is the passage of operations that
37:35traders are doing, well, the more
37:38passages there are, the more entropy,
37:41which is a series of information,
37:44passes from one part of the system to
37:47the other. And to say that it is a
37:51force, entropy is an emerging force of
37:54the market, means like gravity It is a
37:56force emerging from the bending of
37:59space-time. It is like saying, it is
38:01something that is born, as if the
38:03Madonna appeared here, it is something
38:05that comes out of something else that
38:07we do not really understand what it is.
38:10And obviously all this depends on a
38:12whole series of information, that is,
38:15then read awareness and consciousness
38:18of what is happening that give you the
38:21efficiency of what you are about to do.
38:24It works like this. All the entropy
38:27formulas from thermodynamic physics are
38:29the same as those which can be
38:31effectively applied to the world of
38:33trading. This is what scientific
38:35studies say. Well, finally we can put
38:39it all together and say that 2 ^ n is
38:43ug*e has a function that derives from
38:48time. This is essentially the formula
38:51that Napier came up with for interest,
38:53but it is not just a formula for
38:55interest, it is a formula that
38:57describes the universe. And so we came
39:00up with the idea of describing our
39:01universe with this formula, something
39:03that no one had ever done before. What
39:06happens if I imagine that when the
39:08universe was produced and consciousness
39:12separated, consciousness separated a
39:15precise number of times. And if this
39:17number is this number. precise number
39:19of times was finite? Because we know
39:21that the universe is finite. The
39:23universe is not infinite; it possesses
39:25a specific length in space, time, and
39:27energy that simply cannot be exceeded
39:29by anything. The calculations say this.
39:33And if therefore consciousness had
39:36divided itself two to the power of 79
39:38and then if the game had stopped and
39:41had stopped like this a succussion tun
39:44tun tun tun, that is something to which
39:47you gave 79 hammer blows which are 79
39:53this equals k which I still don't know
39:56what it is for e raised to a number. So
39:59, we know how to calculate the other
40:01number, raised to 54. Why? Because it
40:07says above how to calculate 54. 54 is
40:09calculated, you see that strange
40:11parenthesis that I seem to have written
40:13wrong, that is the square bracket only
40:16at the bottom, at the top there is no
40:18sign. That is a mathematical sign that
40:21means floor, which is to say, it refers
40:23to the value of the calculated number.
40:26I only take the part before the decimal
40:28point and it is done like this. 2 ^ 79
40:31I make the logarithm and we get a
40:33number that is 2.044*10 ^ 23. I take
40:36the logarithm of this to base n and it
40:39comes out to 54.32468. I don't care, I
40:45only care about 54. This means the base
40:48of the number 54. So, when I know that
40:51the number n is 79, I know that what I
40:54have to write on e is also 54 and I
40:57have to calculate K. And k is this damn
41:00number here. 2.13 534. I am the sick
41:04person who looks at this number and
41:08claims it must represent n zero,
41:11meaning a tiny thing that later changed
41:15over time and created the universe.
41:19First of all, 54 must be a time,
41:22because in the formula of Napier that
41:24specific element is indeed a duration
41:26of time. First of all, 54 must be a
41:38time because in the formula of New York
41:41, ...1000 km/. 54 is the time in which
41:47the universe, which has happened 79
41:51times, tun tun tun tun tun tun tun, has
41:55made sure that the quantity K, which I
42:01still don't know what it is, has
42:04expanded with a term e ^ 54, that is
42:07with e raised to a time t which is
42:10equal, correctly, to a space divided by
42:14a speed; we have to find this Mr. K
42:17here. But what the hell is 213? Let's
42:22do the math and discover that the
42:26square root of exactly one angle theta
42:31of 4 pi and this angle theta is exactly
42:35180 °. 00. Holy, but you know
42:40that then maybe we have found a formula
42:42where the numbers add up. How strange
42:44that it is 180 °, right? Just as if it
42:47had made half a turn of a circle. 2 ^
42:5079 is the exact number and to the power
42:52of 54 is the exact number. And what the
42:56hell could this be? What does it
42:58represent? We'll see in a moment what
43:01it represents, because this thing
43:03represents a lot of things. For example
43:05, the same number is exactly √8 432,
43:11that is, do you remember? The number
43:15eight that appears because there are
43:18eight places where the universe is made
43:21, eight so many and 432 is 432 is the
43:25base frequency of the universe. Once
43:28again something vibrates 432 and this
43:30vibration expands for a time and to the
43:33power of 54. How strange, this thing is
43:37incredible, but it's not enough because
43:40it's also equal to this thing here. Do
43:44you see why we got so worked up
43:46calculating this gentleman? Because
43:49this gentleman is an energy and if you
43:52think about it you can demonstrate that
43:56this thing here is a time because it's
43:59a 1 divided by a frequency, so it's a
44:02time and a time multiplied by an energy
44:06is something that quantum physics calls
44:10action. In trading, before something
44:15starts and when it ends there are a
44:18certain number of actions that must
44:21always be the same. That's where this
44:24strange number comes from which we will
44:26see later is 13. It's an action. What
44:31does this mean? That the universe and
44:34therefore also us when Let's calculate
44:37trading. We have to calculate it with
44:39this structure, that is, there is a
44:41certain number of actions that must
44:44always be the same between the
44:46beginning and the end of a fractal, of
44:51a fractal imprint, but there must be
44:54guarantees that this formula is correct
44:58. That formula above also represents
45:02something else, because 180, the number
45:06is 180/pi gives the number 57,
45:12something that in terms of radians is a
45:15radian. So this structure up here
45:18becomes √ qu 1/4 pi where 1 is a
45:21radian and this 1/4 pi represents
45:25exactly the unit of measurement of the
45:28radiance in energy of a spherical
45:31electromagnetic field that opens up
45:34like this. Just think, it's incredible.
45:39We had found the value of N0 that
45:41represents all these things and that
45:43shows basically that the universe, damn
45:46it, is really made like this. Things
45:52are simple because we reconstruct them
45:55on a graph and by reconstructing them
45:57on a graph we discover something that
46:00we could not have imagined was like
46:03this. We have to draw a circle that has
46:06as its Radius pi here. So the equation
46:10is x² + y² = pi, and that's actually
46:13to the power of four, that one there to
46:16the power of four. So this means that
46:21you see here 9.8, the radius comes
46:25because 9.8 is 31*31, and the other
46:30lighter sign is 2 ^ 79. For the angle/4
46:34pi ^ 05 is the square root of e ^ 54,
46:37and this yellow thing, this yellow
46:40thing, it spins, spins, spins, spins,
46:43spins, and where does it hit? It hits
46:46right there where the angle is 180 °.
46:51What does this mean? That whatever
46:53number I put in place of 79, whatever
46:56number I get, I'll get something that
46:59spins and hits the circumference, and
47:02where it hits it has an angle, and that
47:05angle there is precisely the angle
47:08theta. I always remind you that 79 is a
47:12prime number. Let's try with 137. 137
47:19does the same. At the top you can see a
47:23small 2 elev 137, which means e raised
47:27to the power of 94. Here the same law.
47:31And what you see of all these spirals
47:34is always the blue circle that has a
47:37radius of 2 pi squared and this time
47:40the curve ends here. Exactly. Look at
47:44the super up top, it says 269.9, which
47:48means 270 °. 137, I remind you that in
47:52addition to being a prime number, it is
47:54also the fine structure constant of the
47:55universe, which physicists do not know
47:57which way it comes out. It is a
47:59geometric thing, but they are precise
48:02angles. Now, what does this mean? That
48:07the formula is valid because this
48:10number describes practically the entire
48:13universe. And why is it valid? Because
48:17it is important that it is valid,
48:19because otherwise everything we will
48:20say later on about trading could be my
48:22invention. I am struck by this formula
48:28that I find golden ratio divided by pi
48:31equals almost equal. You see that
48:34almost equal there always gets you.
48:35Euler's number divided by 5.52.5 Hz is
48:42the music of the stars. You heal, if
48:45you have a callus, you have surgery at
48:48528 Hz, the callus disappears, maybe
48:51you get horns, but it doesn't matter. I
48:54do this calculation and I discover that
48:56something doesn't add up, because this
49:00is not 528, there is a real number that
49:03is different, it is 5,277. I look at
49:08this number and I say, but I have
49:11already seen this number somewhere. You
49:14know, I do the math even at night and
49:18even if I had seen it a few months
49:21before I remember this strange number
49:23with all these 777 behind it and then I
49:26try to remember where I saw it. So we
49:31know that this is the formula 2 ^ n =
49:35theta/4 pi ^ √*e ^ m. And it occurs
49:41to me to calculate but what if n were 1
49:43? Now that we have found the formula of
49:46the universe, I put a lot of numbers to
49:48n to see what comes out. What if n were
49:501? If n were 1, 2 ^ 1 is 2 and m is
49:56ugori. If you do the math, 85,485 is an
50:06angle. Theta is an angle, an angle that
50:10corresponds to the instant in which
50:12this kind of rotation hits the radius
50:15of a pi square circle at 85 °. So here
50:19it is right here. Well, we had also
50:24calculated a different algorithm, one
50:26that was able to put the various angles
50:28in relation to the frequencies. We did
50:30this many years ago while we were
50:32working on an article about 432 Hz, the
50:35piano, and so on. It is a very precise
50:38formula which relates pi to the fifth A
50:41note of the piano keyboard in a
50:43specific way. So by applying this
50:46formula we calculate f (x) with f with
50:49theta which is 85,485. The result is
50:548.5395 which I remember seeing divided
51:01by the golden ratio, it makes a number
51:045.2777. That's where I saw that number
51:08there. So, putting all this stuff
51:11together, putting it all together and
51:14doing some trivialities, mathematicians
51:17call them trivialities. Trivial for
51:19those who know how; for those who do
51:20not, they are not so trivial.
51:22Substitutions. Let's calculate it, and
51:26the formula comes out 8, born empty, 8,
51:30you would say 8 = e raised to the power
51:36of 1 + π/2/pi/raised to the power of 2
51:40-π/2. One has a value of 13 and some
51:44change, the other is 1.63 and I say 8.
51:478 represents 80. What exactly is that
51:50over there? That division where there
51:54is something above eight times bigger
51:57than the thing below. Do you want to
52:00see what the surface area of the
52:03universe is? The universe expands in
52:06this way, but it is a spheroid that has
52:09a certain surface area. Can you let me
52:12calculate the surface area of this
52:14spheroid using the numbers of normal
52:19mathematics? And so we do it and there
52:22is a formula by this gentleman who is
52:25Thomsen, Knude Thomsen who calculates
52:29for our eonic universe which is 162
52:32long and 121.5 high, so it is not a
52:35sphere, it is a spheroid, a volume of
52:38276,473. Well, this 276.473 473 must
52:44necessarily be related to the 13.0762,
52:50which is e raised to 1 + π/2, the
52:54specific value that I had previously
52:58managed to find. The relationship is
53:02very clear, it depends on the ratio
53:05between these two numbers is 21.15, but
53:0721.15 15. You take the tangent, you
53:10multiply it here by the for the fine
53:12structure of the universe, you square
53:14it, you get one. You have obtained
53:17exactly the ratio that exists between
53:20the universe that we identify with the
53:23epideonic universe, it is Euler's
53:26formula, it is Napier's formula because
53:29they are connected by precise numbers.
53:32So these formulas that we have given
53:34are true. What comes out of this type
53:38of operation? Therefore, everything
53:41that could be applied to trading had to
53:47essentially take into account the fact
53:49that there are certain actions where,
53:51as soon as one concludes, another one
53:53begins, and these specific actions must
53:56necessarily be characterized by the
53:58presence of the exact same number of
54:00individual events. Very good. So
54:04between one action and another there
54:06always had to be the same events and we
54:08can know how many there are. I take
54:10Luca and tell him we have to find the
54:12same number of events which are the
54:14same number of candles. And he says to
54:18me, "Yeah, now let's look." Then he
54:20calls me back after a couple of weeks
54:22and says, "But what if you think there
54:24could be 13?" And I say, damn it, of
54:28course there could be 13, because in
54:31the eideonic world there are 13 steps
54:35to go from one energy level to another,
54:38which are actually 12. It's as if the
54:41universe were made up of 13 steps, 13
54:45pillars, 13 points where you plant your
54:48foot. And so you see 12 steps because
54:51the first step, which you never count,
54:53is the ground floor, that is, the one
54:55that doesn't count at all. That is,
54:58there are 12 + 1 once again. And then
55:01the entropic information contained in
55:05this number of energy actions, for the
55:13entropy contained in these 13 steps,
55:16must always be the same entropy,
55:19because we have seen that every time
55:22the fractal universe is expressed in a
55:26step and in a unit of time there are
55:29always the same steps; well, there must
55:32always be the same entropy, that is,
55:35always the same information. That's
55:38where the whole discussion came from.
55:41And so, of course there are 13, for
55:43example, the video is made like this,
55:46there is an axis like this, an axis
55:48like this and an axis that goes back
55:51and forth, which are the axes of energy
55:53, time and space. Up here there is a
55:58value. At 45 ° there is another value.
56:00At 90 ° there is another value. At 45
56:02° there is another value, at 90 °
56:04there is another value. Do all these
56:06calculations, I know 13 values, like
56:09there are 12 notes on the piano and the
56:1313th is the no sound, like 13 were the
56:16seconds in which that radioactive
56:18element somehow halved, the half-life
56:22of the radioactive element. So the
56:26number 13 really has something to do
56:30with it. It was clear then, because
56:38this is our issue, the problem you
56:40encounter when looking at a portion of
56:43trading: your awareness is often unable
56:46to recognize exactly where that
56:49specific thing you need to analyze
56:52begins, and where, on the other hand,
56:55it ultimately comes to an end. Because
56:58if you know where it begins and where
57:00it ends, that is, you are aware of this
57:03, you then know how to repeat it with
57:05the rules that we gave you before. So
57:09now we have two steps, two more
57:13variables. One, we know that there are
57:1713 candles, 13 steps, 13 moments and
57:21below and below is the entropy. How do
57:24you calculate the entropy of these 13
57:27things, which must always be the same?
57:30And quantum physics helps us, that is,
57:33the number of information helps us once
57:37again. Let's get straight to the point,
57:41which is this Hawkins, a physicist who
57:44established the entropy of a black hole
57:47. Look, for our trading we went as far
57:50as fishing for black holes, and Hawking
57:53even had this very formula engraved
57:57onto his own burial tombstone. The
58:00speed of light A which is an area, the
58:02area of the black hole divided by 4 G
58:05which is the gravitational constant and
58:07h cut which is Planck's constant
58:09divided by 2 pi gre. But there is a but
58:14that Plank, Max Plank says there are
58:19too many constants here. Since the
58:24holographic universe has no constants
58:26and Planck proposes that all the
58:28constants of the universe—which some
58:31say are a little bigger, a little
58:33smaller, they need to be recalculated,
58:35mistakes are made—but if we made them
58:38all equal to one, if we made them all
58:40equal to one, all the physics that you
58:44see written here about black holes is
58:47simplified because entropy becomes area
58:514. What does this mean? It is simple;
58:55the only way to determine the entropy
58:59of a portion of a trading function is
59:03by searching for an area, specifically
59:07the area that is subtended by those 13
59:12shares. This is the fundamental aspect.
59:17This is the area divided by 4, the most
59:19important thing there is. And so, at
59:22this point, we take a small piece of
59:25the graph. I took a random one-hour
59:30chart from 4 to 5 p.m. last week of any
59:37asset, and then I chewed it over, as
59:39they say in Tuscany, in a rather
59:41different way. This stuff here, even
59:44though they seem like two completely
59:46different things, I assure you that
59:48it's the exact same graphic step, a
59:50stencil that's been messed up so that
59:52...I've turned it upside down, I've
59:54turned it around, I've widened it, I've
59:56lengthened it. But I can assure you
59:59that it's the same, that we've already
1:00:01demonstrated in previous steps that
1:00:04with some rules we know how to identify
1:00:06the stencil, which is that one there,
1:00:09and we know that it will repeat itself
1:00:11even with these variations. So I won't
1:00:14go into the field of understanding why
1:00:16that stuff there has transformed into
1:00:19this stuff here, but I'll tell you that
1:00:21the area underlain from start to finish
1:00:24(16-17, let's say) is one hour. But we
1:00:26can go to 15 minutes, which would be
1:00:29faster; later we'll see why, and the
1:00:34area must always be the same. In the
1:00:36first step it's all positive. In the
1:00:38second step, perhaps the bottom line
1:00:42goes up or down, thus creating a first
1:00:45part of the graph that's negative as an
1:00:49area and a second part of the graph
1:00:52that's positive as an area. Who does
1:00:55this work? No, the trader does it with
1:00:58the computer. You tell him, "Look,
1:01:01after 13 candles, do something, put the
1:01:05bar at the right height to make the
1:01:08math work out." And then you discover
1:01:12that you have 2 more hours of
1:01:15understanding because you can
1:01:17understand when something starts and
1:01:20ends by analyzing it and then know how
1:01:23it will repeat itself because you know
1:01:26how many actions it takes and you know
1:01:29that the area under these actions must
1:01:32always be the same. And who tells you
1:01:35that? The equation of the structure of
1:01:37the universe. 2 ^ x equals something
1:01:40multiplied by e raised to the power of
1:01:42something else. By looking at that
1:01:45information and understanding how K is
1:01:48made, you can see exactly why Serleto
1:01:51and I decided to set up the program in
1:01:55that specific way. We went out in
1:01:57search of what the equations of physics
1:02:00, of physics in general, were telling
1:02:02us to be true. And what did we find?
1:02:05The repetitiveness that we wanted to
1:02:07find. So things really are like that.
1:02:09On one hand, quantum physics tells
1:02:11Serletto, "You are right," and on the
1:02:14other, Serletto tells me, "Look, you
1:02:16did not dream up the fact that you can
1:02:19apply Napier’s formula with Euler’s
1:02:21number." It has this consciousness that
1:02:24divides into many parts because this is
1:02:26genuinely happening, because the
1:02:28numbers are the right ones. One does
1:02:30not joke about pi. Pi comes out equal
1:02:33to 99.999%. Therefore, it cannot be a
1:02:39coincidence. With these premises, we
1:02:42must convince ourselves that we have
1:02:45essentially done a good job. In fact,
1:02:48if, quantumly speaking, the present is
1:02:51the only solution to the superposition
1:02:54of two quantum states located, one in
1:02:57the past and the other in the future,
1:03:01this means something important: that
1:03:03the entropy of the present, understood
1:03:07as information, is the sum of the
1:03:09entropy of the past and that of the
1:03:12future. What does this complicated
1:03:14argument mean? This complicated
1:03:17discourse signifies that, in addition
1:03:19to these two pieces of information, we
1:03:22have another piece of information that
1:03:25we must take into account, which is the
1:03:28opening of the window that we consider
1:03:31to be the present. Why? Because if it
1:03:36is true, as physics says. modern
1:03:38quantum mechanics, that the past and
1:03:41the future, the quantum mathematical
1:03:44equations of the past and the future
1:03:46that do not exist, are added together
1:03:49only at a single point which is the
1:03:51present, where there is therefore only
1:03:54one solution, only the present exists.
1:03:58So, we know one fundamental thing, that
1:04:00the present contains all the
1:04:02information, the sum of the past and
1:04:05the future. If the present contains the
1:04:08information of the past P + F, then we
1:04:11take the information of the present, we
1:04:14remove the information of the past and
1:04:16what the hell do you want to remain if
1:04:19not the information of the future? And
1:04:22that's how it's done. That is the
1:04:25reason why we take a window and look
1:04:28immediately at what has just happened.
1:04:32The information that is here and that
1:04:34is here, that is in the present and in
1:04:37the past, necessarily gives the
1:04:39information about what will be the
1:04:41repetition of the window and the
1:04:43problem will be, but how wide should
1:04:46this window be? That's the problem. We
1:04:50need to understand the width of the
1:04:52window. So, I'm telling you, the width
1:04:56of the window that we observe is equal
1:05:00to the resolution of the synthetic
1:05:03aperture radar. Why? Because if you
1:05:09widen or narrow this window you have
1:05:12more or less information. How Does
1:05:14synthetic aperture radar work? Like
1:05:18this. Pretend that up there there is
1:05:23this little square, this rectangle
1:05:26which is the antenna of the synthetic
1:05:29aperture radar that looks down and
1:05:32takes a picture of the trading chart
1:05:35which is this and you look from above.
1:05:39If you look at the formula at the top,
1:05:41the resolution in Azimuth, which means
1:05:44how you are able to distinguish the
1:05:47events, that is the candles, because if
1:05:49you look at them from too far away, the
1:05:52candles seem to become a single candle;
1:05:55instead you have to look at them at a
1:05:58certain, with a certain, um, resolution
1:06:00to understand that there are many, in
1:06:03this case 13 candles in a unit of time
1:06:06with 13 actions that have been seen. So
1:06:08there is a resolution. In this context,
1:06:13there are two types of resolutions that
1:06:15we have on our radar screen. The first
1:06:19is called in Azimuth, the one that
1:06:22interests us regarding the unfolding of
1:06:25the scrolling tape, which is the
1:06:28trading chart, while the other is in
1:06:34range; that is, the radar sees what is
1:06:37behind it and, if that object is
1:06:39positioned too close, it is unable to
1:06:42distinguish this with the angle. What.
1:06:45Do you know what this means here? This
1:06:47is a measure of the operator's
1:06:50awareness. The operator must have an
1:06:53eye so clear that it becomes the sine
1:06:57of this angle. Can we use this type of
1:07:02operation? No, why? Because in this
1:07:08specific context, this is the old, old
1:07:11way of trading: a single still image,
1:07:14bang, of space-time. What does the old
1:07:18model do to see the trading? To be sure
1:07:21of winning it must create an antenna
1:07:24amplitude, that one there, the antenna
1:07:26that must be so large that it starts at
1:07:29the beginning of time and ends at the
1:07:32end of time. So it is clear that it
1:07:34will take in all the information, but
1:07:37it is an antenna that cannot be used,
1:07:39it is impossible both in radar and in
1:07:41the operator. So, in reality the
1:07:44trading does something else: it uses
1:07:47synthetic aperture radar. That is,
1:07:50instead of putting a 200 km antenna
1:07:53into orbit, which cannot be done, it
1:07:56puts a small antenna into orbit, which
1:07:59is a small antenna, but it takes many
1:08:02images of the point that you are
1:08:04looking at. That is, how this point
1:08:09moves-not how it moves The pyramid
1:08:11moves, but as it moves, the market
1:08:12moves at that point–which goes
1:08:14forward, backward, forward, backward,
1:08:16forward, backward, that is, the famous
1:08:18candles are being created. When L is
1:08:21used in this context, the resolution
1:08:24formula changes, because this time, if
1:08:28the value of L is small, then it is
1:08:31finally possible to achieve a great
1:08:34resolution. And what the hell do we get
1:08:37? When the window is small we get the
1:08:41best results because awareness is
1:08:43practically also a measure of the
1:08:46openness of our eye that looks at a
1:08:49small portion and therefore manages to
1:08:52have a small portion of information in
1:08:55the past that will give it a small
1:08:58piece of information about the future.
1:09:02Once again, physics gave us the
1:09:06information that we could apply with a
1:09:10certain usefulness to trading. This is
1:09:15therefore the reason why we achieve the
1:09:17best results by using small windows,
1:09:20whereas with large windows, we observe
1:09:23a significant dispersion of the
1:09:25information. So there is a conclusion
1:09:27that we can draw. You see, this is
1:09:31something that should never be
1:09:33forgotten in our analyses. This is
1:09:37somewhat a personal conclusion of mine,
1:09:39I must say, because what is it that we
1:09:41have actually done? We have tried to
1:09:44take the formulas of physics and to
1:09:46dissect them; to do so say, "Look at
1:09:48what this angle is; why is pi written
1:09:50there, and why is there a square root
1:09:52sign?" Why is there the number 8? That
1:09:55is to say, we provided it with a
1:09:57conscious vision, and through this, we
1:09:59were able to see that we could
1:10:01translate this conscious vision into
1:10:04trading. It has returned results, and
1:10:06results matter, but we must always
1:10:09remember one fundamental aspect, and I
1:10:11know that people will tell me I am a
1:10:14fool. When we engage in trading, each
1:10:17of us is, in reality, two traders: a
1:10:19soul-based part and a spiritual part,
1:10:22which are two distinct traders who must
1:10:24come to an agreement with one another
1:10:26in order to execute an operation. What
1:10:29happens is that the male trader says: "
1:10:322*2 equals 4/5 logarithm 6 and so on",
1:10:35and then there is a female part that
1:10:37says: "I have a feeling that silver is
1:10:40going up". Look, I mean, we have
1:10:48performed all the math, all the
1:10:51necessary calculations, and we have
1:10:53observed how well it functions, but it
1:10:56must be stated that there is another
1:10:59fundamental thing, um, which is this:
1:11:01essentially, there is a male part that
1:11:04completes the homework and a female
1:11:06part that gazes into the crystal ball,
1:11:09and basically I I believe that we
1:11:11should be able to listen to our soul
1:11:14part, even for a moment, because
1:11:16sometimes it is the one that is right.
1:11:19Thank you.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 🔢 Dal Numero di Avogadro al Mercato: ✨ La Struttura Nascosta della Realtà 🔮 by Luca Serleto Visionary Lab, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 9,880 words across 1,400 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.