= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 8 - 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 (653)
This is Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. If we're not supposed to use our logic here, then the whole thing is pointless.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You have a number of time-travel interactions in both canon and MOR!verse where you could attempt to find any such hint of a prohibition, sense of "Doom", bouts of sickness is relation to time-travel, etc, etc.
If you can't find such evidence of a prohibition, or the other phenomena you describe, then that is evidence against there being such a prohibition or such phenomena.
You don't use logic because you're "supposed to".
I won't downvote you, but I was tempted to, for seemingly intentional lack of clarity in your objection. Making us guess at what you mean seems a waste of our collective time.
By the phrase "if we not supposed to use our logic" I meant "if we can't apply our logic to make testable predictions about plot-points and revelations in subsequent chapters".
Is that more agreeable with you?
If we're going to divert to this tangent then I'll say that yes, in fact, often people do use logic because they are "supposed to". You could make the normative claim that you're not "supposed to" use logic because you're "supposed to". But the descriptive one is as false as the normative one is arbitrary.
And wasn't intended meaning.
And intended meaning of ArisKatsaris fits perfectly well in context.
I don't think it was. If there is any notion of consequences at all, there are methods to be developed for steering consequences where you want them to go, it's not a matter of social or genre convention to break this principle.
I don't believe you parsed the context correctly.
Yes. I dislike connotations of "supposed to", since it equivocates between laws of thought and social expectations, but this distinction doesn't map to the context, because two worlds are involved instead of just one. In context, the intended distinction is between the author following or breaking in-world laws of nature, filtering the evidence essentially.