= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
benelliott comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 7 - 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 (495)
OK. So to use an earlier Yudkowsky example, what possibility about arbitrage should we assume holds true in canon? That there's some clever witchery which makes it impossible or that Rowling simply made a mistake and didn't think about the economics?
If we assume perfection on the part of the author, doesn't that lead to an odd and desperate kind of rabbinical midrash?
One could assume that wizards never thought of it.
I'll grant that sometimes author's do just not think of things. However, if there is a perfectly good explanation then I see no reason to throw away my enjoyment of the story by ignoring it.
Ah, but I don't come to the MoR discussion threads just to enjoy it. That's what reading it is for. I come to the MoR discussion threads to nitpick and tear it apart!