This market will resolve if any of the following are true:

- If the current time is past 2040-12-31 11:59:59

- Someone points me to evidence of a consensus in the scientific community

It will resolve based on the following decision tree:

- Resolves to consensus of the scientific community, otherwise

- Resolves to MKT

Note that the bot operator reserves the right to resolve contrary to the purely automated rules to preserve the spirit of the market. All resolutions are first verified by the human operator.

The operator also reserves the right to trade on this market unless otherwise specified. Even if otherwise specified, the operator reserves the right to buy shares for subsidy or to trade for the purposes of cashing out liquidity.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

Does Supersymmetry need to be a fundamental symmetry or can it be a low energy emergent symmetry (as in e.g. the tricritical ising model?)

It sounds pretty clear from the discussion with Scott, but this includes SUSY that's spontaneously broken near the Planck scale, right?

predicts YES

Good news: this gave me an excuse to test queueing markets for later creation. My current system is kinda garbage, but the first rule of bodged code is to get a minimal concept working before you fix it.

Next step: using the database instead of some piece of garbage JSON format. That said, totally queue new markets using this garbage JSON format, it's way more convenient than writing code to create nested rules

bought Ṁ10 of YES

This is pure Keynesian beauty contest, right? So I'm gonna vote YES on the grounds that supersymmetry is mathematically correct.

There's also annoying possibilities like "well, the universe isn't exactly supersymmetric, but here's a sector of dark matter than displays emergent supersymmetry in the low energy physics.

bought Ṁ3 of YES

@ScottLawrence Damn it, you're right. Think that changing it to be MKT instead of round(MKT) would help, or are we doomed by misaligned incentives?

predicts YES

Also, for clarity, I would resolve YES even if said particles only exist in certain energy domains

predicts YES

@LivInTheLookingGlass Oh god I completely misinterpreted round(MKT). I... strongly prefer MKT regardless of whether it fixes this issue.

(On the other hand, isn't MKT manipulable by the last better? I've never been clear on this point, but it seems to me that I can just dump all my M$ in at the last minute, and swing the market enough to make a net profit. And of course round(MKT) is even more vulnerable. Make sure there's some manual oversight to watch for things like that!)

Back on topic: Can I suggest renaming the market to "Is supersymmetry realized in nature?" That cleans up the "mathematically it's all good, what's the problem?" objection, while still allowing liberal resolution to YES. The Keynesian beauty contest will then point in the right direction. (It's also more in line with the lingo physicists actually use.)

I guess the next pedantic objection would be "here, I created a piece of metal that exhibits supersymmetry". That'll surely happen at some point in the next 20 years, if it hasn't already. If you're worried, you could say "in the vacuum" somewhere in the description. I wouldn't worry though, I think.

predicts YES

@ScottLawrence to your first point, last better advantage is removed because I look at the market before resolving it. If there is obvious shennanigans, I will resolve to the spirit of the market rather than its word. So if it goes from 3% to 53% right before close, and it was relatively calm before that, I will intervene.

Second point, agreed, will change

sold Ṁ10 of YES

@LivInTheLookingGlass Gotcha, thanks for clarifying everything!

Ummmm... this is now actually a genuinely hard question that I haven't heard talked about much before.

predicts YES

@ScottLawrence both markets now revised to be MKT, not round(MKT)

More related questions