Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 23, chapter 94

elharo

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 94. The previous thread has passed 200 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, 21, 22.

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Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).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Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).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.

Those are still classed as charms, complete with wand motions and incantations. I...suppose it's plausible that Harry will figure out how to invent a new transfiguration charm before any other type of charm, but....I just wouldn't expect that to last for very long, once he hacks deep enough into magic to start inventing spells. for the purposes of ringmione, it's negligible.
Broom-spells are cast long before the rider gets on.

"most people would not expect the dangers of transfiguration"-well Rowling certainly didn't...but harry had to go pretty deep, conceptually, to invent partial transfiguration; shallow expectations don't seem to have much of an effect on transfiguration. it may only have been changeable by the original inventors of transfiguration in the MoR verse.

...You think if nobody warned about the dangers of transfiguration there wouldn't be any issues? I actually doubt that, Harry had to go pretty deep before overcoming the whole-object limitation. whatever the real rules for transfiguration are, harry came pre

Those are still classed as charms, complete with wand motions and incantations.

Yeah, creating a separate spell (like whatever Animagi do) would be creating a new charm.

But he could just modify the normal transfiguration. He casts partial transfiguration the same way as the normal one, it’s just how he thinks about it that changes.

4bogdanb13y

Yes, you’re right, the analogy was not correct. But my point is that it appears that the broom spell does what’s intuitive, and the transfiguration spell apparently does not. [...] No, in MoRverse at least people would die. But that’s my point, it’s weird that you need dire warnings that transfiguration doesn’t work as you might expect, but pretty much every other spell we’ve seen does not require such warnings, even if very powerful (e.g., time-turners; note that Harry was terrified, and Minerva acted less concerned than if she gave him a bike). [...] Exactly. Why do they seem to have an effect in other cases? For example, a teleport spell will also have to compensate for the difference in velocity between the departure and destination. But the shallow expectation is that you’ll arrive stationary, and it works as you expect. Also, it takes with you whatever you’re wearing, even in a pocket, and presumably even if you don’t know you have it on you, but doesn’t take the carpet you’re standing on (and so do time-turners). Aresto Momentum itself looks very safe on first view, and nobody warns about, say, casting it while inside a moving vehicle (depending on what it actually means, which if you think hard about it is not very clear, it should be very dangerous to cast it on objects inside or outside the vehicle). Time turners don’t drop you in outer space. Brooms partly ignore inertia. Tooth-growing charms don’t break your jaw. Accio doesn’t seem to kill people or destroy property, even if you summon an object from very far away, and doesn’t work on buildings. Fold-space objects have limited capacity, but one can enter a space-folding trunk while holding a space-folding pouch without needing to think about the possible consequences. Floo powder protects you not only from the burning, but also from suffocation and CO poisoning (you keep your head in the fire to use it for communication). Even accidents are somewhat intuitive: an extra cat hair in Polyjuice can g