wedrifid comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 8 - Less Wrong

8 Post author: Unnamed 25 August 2011 02:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (653)

Comments (653)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 September 2011 03:17:21PM 1 point [-]

There's nothing in Harry Potter-style time travel (either canon or MOR!verse) about not touching or interacting with past versions of yourself.

I must have missed this. Where is it written that you can touch your past self, mingle magics with your past self, cast spells in your past self, etc.?

Non sequitur

Comment author: gwern 04 September 2011 03:33:12PM * 0 points [-]

Privileging the hypothesis - that mingling with your past self is harmless. It's the rare timetravel fiction (fanfiction or otherwise) where such interactions are harmless; usually, it's disastrous in some respect. In the absence of an actual example that it is not disastrous, like the Tom Riddle citation, our priors are not 50/50 or outright assuming it's harmless.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 September 2011 03:47:05PM * 1 point [-]

Privileging the hypothesis - that mingling with your past self is harmless.

No. Please read the grandparent again. I cannot explain more clearly without explaining basic logic itself. The reply simply does not follow.

The remainder of what you say here could be made as a reply to the great grandparent where it would at least fit (even if I would still disagree based on priors).

Comment author: gwern comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 04 September 2011 04:28:47PM * 8 points [-]

ArisKatsaris apparently reads only time travel stories where interfering with the past and especially yourself is all fun and games

I don't appreciate this attitude.

I've read and seen time-travel stories with all sorts of different rules. And I can recognize and distinguish in my mind the rules used in each. In "Time Traveller's Wife" there's nothing wrong with touching yourself. In "Gargoyles" there was nothing wrong with touching yourself. In "All you Zombies" there's nothing wrong with time-travelling to meet your sex-reversed self, having sex and impregnating yourself, and then birthing yourself.

Prisoner of Azkaban future Harry casts a Patronus to save himself. A whole chapter of Methods of Rationality was devoted to Harry pranking himself.

If you can't tell apart the ruleset used in Harry Potter & Methods of Rationality (or for that matter Harry Potter canon), then that's your failure of reason, not mine.

I read mostly stories where interfering with yourself is ridiculously universe-level endangering,

And in Methods of Rationality you read a chapter where Harry initially fears that time-travel is ridiculously universe-level endangering, and was assured by McGonnagal that it wasn't. Why are you even bringing this up then? You know it's not universe-level endangering in Methods of Rationality.

And yet you seemingly choose to ignore that chapter, in favour of the rulesets in other stories, by other authors, in other fictional universes.

Tell me, which evidence do you think possess higher entaglement with Method of Rationality future plot-points -- the time travel stories you've read in other fictional universes, or the chapters written by the same author in the same fanfic, ones deliberately designed to establish the ruleset of timetravel?

Comment author: gwern 04 September 2011 04:35:19PM -2 points [-]

A whole chapter of Methods of Rationality was devoted to Harry pranking himself.

Where he doesn't touch himself or use magic on himself (not going to re-read it just to check).

And in Methods of Rationality you read a chapter where Harry initially fears that time-travel is ridiculously universe-level endangering, and was assured by McGonnagal that it wasn't. Why are you even bringing this up then? You know it's not universe-level endangering in Methods of Rationality.

I also 'know' that you can't time travel back more than a few hours, and certainly not decades/centuries. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 04 September 2011 04:44:29PM 1 point [-]

Where he doesn't touch himself or use magic on himself (not going to re-read it just to check).

I wonder how many stories have you read where it's "using magic on yourself" specifically that somehow is a problem, but extensive pranking and other interference isn't?

I also 'know' that you can't time travel back more than a few hours, and certainly not decades/centuries.

Yes, that's even more evidence against your theory.

I\d like to hear the reasoning about how the fact you need to disregard the WHOLE stated ruleset of Harry Potter time-travel, not just isolated pieces of it, somehow supports your theory.

Comment author: gwern 04 September 2011 05:30:21PM 0 points [-]

I\d like to hear the reasoning about how the fact you need to disregard the WHOLE stated ruleset of Harry Potter time-travel, not just isolated pieces of it, somehow supports your theory.

I had not remembered the examples inside MoR, but the priors were still correct - interference is usually bad in time travel stories. I'm not ignoring the examples subsequently presented. I've specifically - twice now - singled out one piece of evidence as very good counter-example for the HarryxQuirrel part of the time-travel thesis. (In the absence of good time-travel counter-counter-examples, I'd prefer to look at the other parts of the argument, like Quirrel's priors, his sickness, his apparent connections to Hat-and-Cloak, etc.)

Yes, that's even more evidence against your theory.

Whatever the explanation for Quirrel turns out to be, it will be strange and against conventional Wizarding knowledge, with the exception of the horcrux category of explanations (inasmuch as it's known to a very few other wizards like Dumbledore). It is weak evidence at best and much reliance should not be placed on the thin reed of conventional Wizarding wisdom.

wedrifid comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 8 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (653)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (653)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login