= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Ask LW: PredictionBook.com and logical uncertainty - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (4)
Of course it can. But look at the existing examples - usually they explicitly or implicitly operationalizing predictions as predictions about certain human activities. For example, predictions about the Millennium problems aren't about the truth or not, but whether the prize is awarded.
That's close to accurate but note that some have both a truth claim and an operational claim. See e.g. http://predictionbook.com/predictions/2838 which predicts that P != NP and predicts that it will be proven by a certain time.
In general your point about operational predictions is a good one, since predictions should be actually falsifiable.
I was actually thinking of your predictions when I said 'implicit'. How would that prediction be judged? Obviously by whether the community of mathematicians/complexity theorists like Scott Aaronson or the Clay Institute says that it was proven or not proven.