Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 22, chapter 93

daenerys

This is a new thread to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and anything related to it. This thread is intended for discussing chapter 93. The previous thread has passed 300 comments.

There is now a site dedicated to the story at hpmor.com, which is now the place to go to find the authors notes and all sorts of other goodies. AdeleneDawner has kept an archive of Author’s Notes. (This goes up to the notes for chapter 76, and is now not updating. The authors notes from chapter 77 onwards are on hpmor.com.)

The first 5 discussion threads are on the main page under the harry_potter tag. Threads 6 and on (including this one) are in the discussion section using its separate tag system. Also: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,18,19,20.

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.

Forgive me if others have mentioned this idea, or if there is firm evidence that it isn't possible, but..

I've been thinking about this since early on. I know most people feel that Quirrel is Voldemort, but I keep wondering if he's a future, middle-aged Harry from an alternate timeline (but (probably) not the canon timeline). I wonder if Harry destroyed the his universe as prophecied trying to save Hermione, and then time traveled to make another attempt. However, this would cause a paradox, but there is a theory that time travel paradoxes can be avoided if one also switches travels to another universe.

There are a number of things that make me think this, including:

1) "I don't suppose," said Harry, "that it's possible to actually swap people into alternate universes? Like, this isn't our own Rita Skeeter, or they temporarily sent her somewhere else?"

"If that was possible," Professor Quirrell said, his voice rather dry, "would I still be here? "

EY later tells us to pay attention to when Quirrell answered without answering. The implication is, "It is possible, and that's why I'm here."

2) At some point Quirrell is quite surprised when Harry explains how he thinks, or says that he wouldn't lie about something serious, as if it differs from his own memory of his way of thinking as child Harry.

3) There's the trope that time travelers can't touch their past selves without disastrous consequences (the sense of doom, and effects of their magics interacting).

4) Your examples above.

Unfortunately, I have to run, but I have some more examples and will post soon, unless someone shoots this out of the water.

EDIT:

And this is, at least, his second possession, the first being the Weasley brother who thought the rat was Pettigrew? That would have been when future Harry realised he wasn't in his own timeline any longer.