Justin Wolfers has escaped the Overcoming Bias purge, it seems. Justin Wolfers’-s 4 posts (published in 2007) remain archived on what is now Robin Hanson’-s QUOTEpersonal blog UNQUOTE. By contrast, Eliezer Yudkowsky’-s posts written for Overcoming Bias now redirect to locations at Less Wrong.
Chris, Eliezer was not “purged.” He requested to have his old posts moved to Less Wrong. No one else has made any similar request.
Eliezer was not “expelled”– he choose to move in order to build a community at Less Wrong using fancy comment karma software. The folks who wrote software for his new site also wrote the code at my new site.
Applied to the psychological arrow of time, that would mean that we could remember the future, instead of the past. We would make a killing on prediction markets if we knew in advance how all contacts would expire.
I did a quick research on the Internet and found out that Olivier Costa De Beauregard is still hot on his interpretation of the EPR paradox —-interpretation which introduces the concept of “-zigzagging causality”-, and which abides by both the physics of quantum mechanics and Einstein’-s physics of general relativity.
Reading Eliezer Yudkowsky at Overcoming Bias is a waste of time.
It’-s better to read the best physicists directly, when you are interesting in an issue.
Robin Hanson and Olivier Costa De Beauregard should meet around a round of white Porto. They both studied (and are fond of) both physics and philosophy.
As always, the solutions to complex problems (e.g., the EPR paradox) are crazy. “-Zigzagging causality”- is crazy, but it might well be the solution.
Discoverers like Robin Hanson and Olivier Costa De Beauregard were often called on their craziness. When Louis De Broglie first heard about the “-zigzagging causality”- idea, he suggested to his secretary that Olivier Costa De Beauregard had a screw lose. Robin Hanson is familiar with that kind of reaction.
At Overcoming Bias, Eliezer Yudkowsky invites pundits, partisans, and anyone else with a nascent opinion about the limits of prediction markets to, in effect, put up or shut up. (Though he puts it in somewhat nicer words). Here is a selection, but read the whole thing:
If you think that Hillary is going to do better than the polls on Super Tuesday, and you’-re going to sneer afterward and say that Intrade was “-just tracking the polls”-, buy Hillary now.
If you think that Obama is going to do better than the polls on Super Tuesday, and you’-re going to gloat about how prediction markets didn’-t call this surprise in advance, buy Obama now.
The point is not that prediction markets are a good predictor but that they are the best predictor. …- If prediction markets react to polls, they’-re getting new information, that they didn’-t predict in advance, which happens. Being the best predictor doesn’-t make you omniscient.
Everyone’-s going to find it real easy to make a better prediction afterward, but if you think you can call it in advance, there’-s FREE MONEY GOING NOW.