Eliezer Yudkowsky retracts or significantly edits one of the posts in the quantum physics sequence in the next two years.
Created by papermachine on 2012-05-03; known on 2014-05-03; judged wrong by waveman on 2014-05-04.
- papermachine estimated 5% on 2012-05-03
- gwern said “the book should be significantly edited; does that count?” on 2012-05-04
- PseudonymousUser estimated 6% on 2012-05-05
- Jayson Virissimo said “Are you guys expecting his rationality book to talk about quantum physics?” on 2012-05-05
- gwern said “look at EY’s recent comments, he seems to think QM is really relevant” on 2012-05-05
- gimpf estimated 5% and said “It really depends on what you mean with “significantly”. IIRC his QM-Seq was important to deal with both identity and the importance of average vs. total utility. Change isn’t significant should those conclusions remain.” on 2012-05-05
- beo_shaffer estimated 5% on 2012-05-05
- papermachine said “What I meant by “significantly edits” is “changes the argument behind or the conclusion of at least one point in the sequence”; sorry if that changes people’s predictions.” on 2012-05-09
- Jayson Virissimo estimated 10% on 2012-05-11
- papermachine said “See also http://lesswrong.com/lw/ee4/debugging_the_quantum_physics_sequence/7ch2” on 2012-09-19
- Tuxedage estimated 5% on 2013-01-13
- waveman estimated 25% and said “He is right. Why would he retract it? Read “The Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” for details.” on 2014-01-17
- Nithi estimated 3% on 2014-01-23
- Grognor estimated 1% on 2014-01-31
- nshepperd estimated 1% on 2014-04-11
- waveman estimated 5% and said “Time is running out with no interest in EY in revising it in the absence of some stunning new information.” on 2014-04-11
- player_03 estimated 1% and said “I kind of missed the boat on this one, didn’t I?” on 2014-04-24
- Jayson Virissimo estimated 0% on 2014-04-25
- waveman estimated 0% and said “Did not happen” on 2014-05-04
- waveman judged this prediction wrong on 2014-05-04.