= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
red75 comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread - 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 (866)
Really, you should use it to try to discover a more powerful luck potion, then take the more powerful luck potion to try to discover a more powerful luck potion still, until eventually you get a hard-takeoff scenario where ever-more-powerful luck potions are falling from the sky into your hands by pure chance every second.
After the luck-ularity, Harry can just throw a random rock up in the air, and it will hit Lord Voldemort right between the eyes, killing him instantly at the same time the Pioneer probe crashes into an asteroid.
We've seen what happened when Harry tried to invoke Infinite Processing Power spell. It's plausible to assume, that each hard-takeoff setup will fail spectacularly.
For example, Harry will get enough luck to enter nirvana.
You say that like becoming a bodhisattva is a bad thing.
'I vow to save all sentient beings...'
A bodhisattva is someone who deliberately refrains from departing into nirvana, but stays behind in order to save all sentient beings.
A nitpick essential to my joke - having enough luck to enter nirvana is not the same thing as actually entering nirvana.
Bad thing? I can't see the implication. It's hard to imagine that peaceful mind will still be trying to hack magic even for saving all sentient beings, thus it's a failure of sorts. Does that failure imply badness? I don't think so.
Indeed?
Do you want to say that "fail spectacularly" has connotations I'm not aware of? I intended it to mean "fail in unpredictable and confusing way". I'm still puzzled by your reaction.
Thanks, I've corrected typo.