chaosmosis comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: FAWS 11 April 2012 03:39AM

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

Comments (1221)

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

Comment author: cultureulterior 13 April 2012 03:51:45PM *  2 points [-]

How Magic Works, Some Facts, Inferences, Conclusions, and Speculations

The Facts:

  • Wizards did not have clocks before muggles did.
  • Time turners are limited to 6 solar hours.
  • Therefore time turners were limited after the invention of Equinoctal hours, in 127CE.
  • The Aurors are planning a jinx to stop opposite reaction effect rockets, but they don't understand rockets.
  • There was a significant flux in children's spells, but children did not seem to use more or fewer spells in the past.
  • Brooms work via Aristotelian physics.
  • It's easier to put together spells to make a broom than to make a new spell to make a broom.
  • You can create semi-intelligent objects without understanding what you're doing or creating a copy of yourself or breeding.
  • Mass production of magical effect-bound objects is easier than individual crafting of individual spells for each item.
  • Objects and animals can be made to understand and respond to speech.
  • Magical animals and plants exist and contain magical power and but are all sized more or less a few orders of magnitude around the human norm. No magical ticks or ants seem to exist.
  • Created animals and object are not aware by default.
  • The Interdict of Merlin seems to be blocking the creation of new powerful spells but allow old powerful spells to be rediscovered.
  • The Interdict of Merlin does not block the creation of new spells, only new powerful spells
  • Random unwanted effects seem to seep into the creation of new spells.
  • New spell creation does not seem correlated with magical power or skill.
  • New spells are created, but not all the time- it is either random, requires effort, or requires time.
  • Nobody was as good as Merlin, and then nobody was as good as the four founders.
  • Children have unconscious magic, but not to the extent that OT Harry did.
  • Wizards seem to spend most of their time in pocket universes, otherwise you'd spot dragons and hogwarts trains on satellite imagery.

The Speculations:

  • The source of magic has a certain limited number of permitted Spell to Effect associations on each power level. These associations are susceptible for expiration when no-one knows the spell anymore. High level associations were frozen in place by the Interdict of Merlin, but low level slots are still expiring, and whatever ritual the wizards use to create spells is merely triggering a garbage collect and conditional new spell insert.

  • Upon reception of the insert ritual, the Source of Magic scans the Wizard's mind, and performs an optimization algorithm on a set of existing spells to make a new spell which is close enough in some set of dimensions to what it thinks the Wizard wants, after which it associates the spell and effect. Therefore it would use thousands of years of existing infrastructure for making intelligent object effects.

  • In this scenario a wizard might be trying to create a spell for years, until a slot opens up that he will get to first, competing with everyone else trying to make spells.

  • Wizards, of course, not willing to accept the apparent randomness of this, have additional learned behaviors about creating spells, things they believe are required, most of which are not required and boil down to daydreaming about the effect you want and practice with the spell string and wand wave.

Comment author: chaosmosis 13 April 2012 04:05:54PM *  0 points [-]

This made me think of an omission that's probably not a very big deal, but preHogwarts Rationalist Harry never reports having used magic before. At the same time, he believes in magic. So maybe he did some magic or saw some magic and was Obliviated?

Also, since Harry's magic bag responds to sign language, can all spells be cast that way even by people who're bad at nonverbal magic?

Comment author: gwern 13 April 2012 04:17:49PM *  4 points [-]

I don't think he really believes in magic... he just points out that belief is not necessary since it can be tested:

"Then you don't have to fight over this," Harry said firmly. Hoping against hope that this time, just this once, they would listen to him. "If it's true, we can just get a Hogwarts professor here and see the magic for ourselves, and Dad will admit that it's true. And if not, then Mum will admit that it's false. That's what the experimental method is for, so that we don't have to resolve things just by arguing."

Although he also thinks

Except that some part of Harry was utterly convinced that magic was real, and had been since the instant he saw the putative letter from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

In canon, it's suggested that accidental magic is self-defense. Harry apparently has a perfectly happy & safe childhood spent reading, so no need for underage magic to ever manifest and no events to cause his dark side like an abused child. So what explains all this?

Well, we know one thing that explains both the certainty and dark side, and does not require any unhappiness or accidental magic in his childhood: influence from a Voldemort horcrux.

Comment author: Desrtopa 14 April 2012 11:28:35PM 4 points [-]

Well, we know one thing that explains both the certainty and dark side, and does not require any unhappiness or accidental magic in his childhood: influence from a Voldemort horcrux.

You know, if it weren't for everyone else taking it so seriously, I would have (and did, before I started following discussions) dismissed Harry's so called dark side as a perfectly normal personality quirk which he makes a big deal of because once he's told he's a prophesied hero he feels he ought to have something dramatically appropriate like a mysterious dark side.

In his place, I wouldn't be thinking "My mysterious dark side is good at X," I'd be thinking "I'm good at X when I put myself into the right frame of mind."

Well, actually, in his place, I might be thinking "my mysterious dark side is good at X," but that's because if I were in his place, I'd be eleven.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 April 2012 11:35:44PM 1 point [-]

In his place, I wouldn't be thinking "My mysterious dark side is good at X," I'd be thinking "I'm good at X when I put myself into the right frame of mind."

Sometimes I'm all simplistic and think to myself "I'm good at X when I get pissed off." Combined with a little emotional regulation with respect to pissed-off levels it amounts to much the same thing.

Comment author: DavidAgain 22 April 2012 08:42:49PM 0 points [-]

Especially if the 'frame of mind' has lots of other stuff going on as well: the implication is that he can't get the competence without the rest of the baggage. So it's like 'slightly drunk me is good at pool (but it also wants to drink more and thus become very bad at pool), rather than 'thoughtful me is good at understanding where other people are coming from'.

Comment author: chaosmosis 13 April 2012 04:30:32PM *  1 point [-]

Okay, that makes sense. But I disagree that the dark side is part of Voldemort's soul.

The dark side is the one that wants to protect his friends, and calling it dark isn't really fair. Voldemort is pretty selfish so this doesn't seem like it applies to him. It's also been stressed in MOR that Harry's dark side isn't giving him access to any of Voldemort's powers. I think it's just a part of his psychology and lonely genius personality and that "the normal explanation is worth considering", even in the wizarding world.

I just thought of something, and I'm not sure what the connection is to this but I feel like there is an underlying connection. Is EY emphasizing Snape's history for a pragmatic plot type reason? Maybe there's a secret reveal coming up, about Lily or something? This is purely intuitive so it's probably crap. But sometimes my intuition is smarter than my active thoughts.

Comment author: gwern 13 April 2012 04:39:48PM 5 points [-]

It's also been stressed in MOR that Harry's dark side isn't giving him access to any of Voldemort's powers.

I would have thought Parseltongue was an obvious example.

Comment author: Velorien 13 April 2012 04:56:48PM *  5 points [-]

It also allows him to master the preparatory Occlumency exercises with extreme speed and ease. Which makes sense since the heart of Occlumency is assuming whatever personality you want at a given time, a gift Voldemort claims to have in abundance.

I just thought of something, and I'm not sure what the connection is to this but I feel like there is an underlying connection. Is EY emphasizing Snape's history for a pragmatic plot type reason? Maybe there's a secret reveal coming up, about Lily or something? This is purely intuitive so it's probably crap. But sometimes my intuition is smarter than my active thoughts.

My guess is that he's filling in Snape's character background to give him the full complexity he deserves as one of the major players. Although Dumbledore doesn't seem to think twice about him, Harry treats him as an obstacle, and Quirrell dismisses him as an opponent, it's been made clear that Snape is running his own multi-stage plans (such as his manipulation of Hermione), which interact and interfere with everyone else's. Perhaps his role is due to expand.

Comment author: chaosmosis 13 April 2012 05:07:18PM *  -2 points [-]

Harry is totally schizophrenic in MOR though. He's got all of the Founders in his head.

The dark side isn't even a personality, as such, which implies strongly that it's not a soul.

I think your interpretation of the Snape thing is probably accurate.

Comment author: Velorien 13 April 2012 05:32:21PM 13 points [-]

Harry is totally schizophrenic in MOR though. He's got all of the Founders in his head.

You seem to be working from a unified view of the mind in which there is one single personality with one single voice, and deviations from this structure are pathological. I don't think this is accurate.

Even if it was, it is common for people to hold internal dialogues, and not unusual for patterns to develop where certain kinds of thought are given certain labels. I don't think this says anything special about Harry, except that he has a rich and vibrant inner life.

Also, a Public Service Announcement: "schizophrenia" is an umbrella term for a long list of possible symptoms whose main common feature is disconnection from reality or warped perception of it. You are thinking of Dissociative Identity Disorder (commonly known as Multiple Personality Disorder), which is a completely different thing altogether.

Comment author: pedanterrific 13 April 2012 09:01:52PM *  3 points [-]

The dark side isn't even a personality, as such, which implies strongly that it's not a soul.

I was originally going to put a quote here, but it turned out to be pretty much half the chapter, so... Chapter 56. In particular, when you read

a blind terrified thing that only wanted to find a dark corner and hide and not have to think about it any more - [...]

Visualizing himself cradling his dark side like a frightened child in his arms.

Think back to Deathly Hallows, Chapter 36: King's Cross, specifically the bit

He was the only person there, except for -

He recoiled. He had spotted the thing that was making the noises. It had the form of a small, naked child, curled on the ground, its skin raw and rough, flayed-looking, and it lay shuddering under a seat where it had been left, unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for breath.

He was afraid of it. Small and fragile and wounded though it was, he did not want to approach it. Nevertheless he drew slowly nearer, ready to jump back at any moment. Soon he stood near enough to touch it, yet he could not bring himself to do it. He felt like a coward. He ought to comfort it, but it repulsed him.

Comment author: gjm 13 April 2012 06:52:21PM 0 points [-]

since Harry's magic bag responds to sign language, can all spells be cast that way [...] ?

I very much doubt it. You have to say "prior incantato" or whatever it is, not "previous spell", and "expecto patronum" rather than "I'm waiting for my protector", etc., and (at least in MoR) the exact durations of the vowel sounds in "oogely boogely" are essential for conjuring glowing bats. It seems very much as if magic is keyed to particular sounds and (pseudo-)languages. There might be sign-language spells, which might make for an interesting underexploited niche for an ambitious magical researcher, but I don't see any reason to expect any sign-language translations of spells to exist.

Comment author: Xachariah 14 April 2012 12:09:19AM 2 points [-]

and (at least in MoR) the exact durations of the vowel sounds in "oogely boogely" are essential for conjuring glowing bats

In canon you have to pronounce it Wing-gar-dium Levi-o-sa and can't cast it unless you make the 'gar' nice and long. (In the movies, it's "Levi-o-sa, not levio-sah").