My predictions to these topics: No experiment apart from OPERA will measure a neutrino speed >c with a significance of more than 3 sigma in 2012: 85% - where the 15% are mainly related to measurement errors OPERA or others will find a significant error in OPERAs measurements in 2012: 50%

Higgs boson will be seen with a local 5 sigma significance (ATLAS+CMS alone or in combination) near ~125 GeV in 2012: 90% - the current signal is quite clear already, even without the magic 5 sigma. So I expect that new data will increase the significance. From the 10%, a large part is related to possible problems with the LHC, it includes serious analysis problems, bad luck and the simple "there is no higgs". Higgs boson will be seen with a global 5 sigma significance (ATLAS+CMS alone or in combination) near ~125 GeV in 2012: 85% - this needs a bit more data than the local significance.

No other new particles will be seen with 5 sigma significance in 2012: 75% - up to now, I did not see any hint for a new particle from both collaborations, so I think there is no 3sigma evidence for anything at the moment

The LHC will collide protons with lead at the end of 2012: 75% - it was tested in 2011, but technical problems prevented collisions

You should be careful with addition and multiplication - to use them, you would have to define them first, and this is not trivial if you have the natural numbers plus A->B->C->A, infinite chains and so on.

In addition, "group" has a specific mathematical meaning, if you use it for arbitrary sets this is quite confusing.

It would be very interesting to see cryonics for very simple brains of other species. This could determine or narrow down the range of probability for several factors.

Edit: Removed doubled word

I also wonder if some failures of human rationality could be counted as a weak form of wireheading. Self-serving biases, confirmation bias and rationalization in response to cognitive dissonance all create counterfeit utility by generating perceptual distortions.

I think those are good examples how human brains build (weak) delusion boxes. They are strong enough to increase happiness (which might improve the overall performance of the brain?), but weak enough to allow the human to achieve survival and reproduction in a more or less rational way.

D&D rules are mostly combat rules. If somebody says they want to play D&D, most people assume they want to play in such a way that the D&D rules are relevant. This isn't a safe assumption, because the name "Dungeons and Dragons" is famous enough that some people will claim they want to play it without knowing what it involves. DMs should clarify to new players that D&D is heavily combat focused, and point out more suitable systems if the player isn't interested in that.

Now I'm wondering how this kind of bias operates outside of science, and specifically with what confidence we can expect insane things to be disregarded.

More in detail, I'm wondering how long homeopathy can survive while all experts can attest that it's not useful. The case of Miracle Mineral Supplement which Eliezer mentioned recently, seems to show that people will stop doing absurd things, when it is shown exactly how absurd they are. The question is, how long does it take for this to happen? After all, people still read horoscopes!

In other words, "Yes"?

I think the question "does consciousness affect neurons?" is as meaningful as "does the process of computation in a computer affect bits?".

Epiphenominal theories of consciousness are kind of silly, but here's another situation I can wonder about... some cellular automata rules, including the Turing-complete Conway's Game of Life, can have different "pasts" that can lead to the same present. From the point of view of a being living in such a universe (one in which information can be destroyed), is there a fact of the matter as to which "past" actually happened?

I'm not sure it is misleading; the material is obviously focused on health and psychology as the areas I read most in, but the the results I discuss should apply to many areas: the specific problems of no incentives for replication or less than p<0.05 significance are common to all areas or all areas which use NHST statistics, etc. You may like to think that hard sciences like chemistry are exempt... but I get a lot of these citations off a biochemistry blog!