= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ikrase comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 25, chapter 96 - 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 (524)
Any guesses why Draco is contacting Harry?
Is that even Draco? I think Gung Uneel nppvqragnyyl gnhtug Dhveeryzbeg gb Cngebahf.
Patroni have been previously claimed to be effectively unfalsifiable. I, for one, am certain it's from Draco.
Are you sure you don't mean you mean extremely falsifiable? It is very easy to tell a true patronus from something else.
Different usages: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/falsifiable
I'm referring to the first usage -- it can't be counterfeited.
Ugh. Apparently the two definitions partition the set of all things.
Great, now everything is falsifiable.
I don't get it. Could you explain it please?
The first definition of "falsifiable" means that it's easy to fake - if a Patronus is falsifiable under this definition, you don't get much information when you see a Patronus, since it could easily be something else and you couldn't tell the difference.
The second definition of "falsifiable" means that it's easy to prove that it's not fake - if a Patronus is falsifiable under this definition, you get a lot of information when you see a Patronus, since it is very difficult for something that looks like a Patronus to actually be a fake.
Because the two defintions are pretty much opposites, between them they cover everything - the ones that are easily fakeable and the ones that are not easily fakeable.
Aha! Thank you!
My mistake was that I kept thinking about "false" as in "false theory" instead of "false" as in "false money".
At least one of the definitions is applicable to any arbitrary proposition. Either (1) it can be counterfeited, implying that there's no test you can perform to determine the true state of things, or (2) it can be tested to determine the true state of things.
(non-native speaker here)
I was under impression that "to counterfeit" means only "to create imperfect copies in order to fraud someone", but it seems that it also means "to deceive". Thank you!
That first is the primary usage. Usually there is some way to tell a counterfeit from the real thing, but one can theoretically make a counterfeit that's indistinguishable from the original. I have only rarely heard it in the sense of "to deceive".
It doesn't actually say that it's from Draco, and Quirrelmort would probably have a snake patronus if he somehow managed to cast it after his conversation with Harry.
What probabilities do you assign on it being from Draco and on it being from Quirrelmort?
Something like 60 - 40 or so.
Heh. Mine are something like 95% and 1%. I'd actually consider it more likely for it to be Lucius's patronus, than it to be Quirrel's.
And here is a PredictionBook link.
EDIT: And one for the second prediction.
It's unfalsifiable, but we don't know what that means. We do know that two people can have the same Patronus, though, so it's not a matter of shape.
In canon -- but even in canon those people who ended up with the shape of someone else's Patronus didn't seem to do so deliberately, nor with intent to deceive.
We already know that Draco's patronus is a snake, and it is reasonable to assume that Quirrelmort's patronus would be a snake as well (given that he's a snake animagus).
That sounds reasonable, but unless everything we saw about Quirrel is lie, he is unable to cast animal Patronus, being cynical sociopathic rationalist with a homicidal tendencies.
There is some possibility that Quirrel have analyzed his conversation with Harry, words about "rejection of Death as a part of natural order" and picture of stars being able to keep Dementation away and re-discovered True Patronus (there is speculation about Quirrel being enemy of Death, so it at least plausible), but True Patronus couldn't look like a snake.
PS: Your argument partly applies to the Patronus of Lucius being a snake, though.
I see no justification for that statement. Perhaps True Patronuses can't take the form of an animal, but that says nothing about what they can look like.
Would a sentient snake wizard say a True Patronus can't look like an ape?
Being a transhumanist, and being good at the kind of mental gymnastics that allowed him to do partial transfiguration, Harry might be able to change his Patronus into any form he likes if he tries hard enough. We know mental stuff can change Patronuses in canon: Tonks' Patronus changed due to her feelings for Lupin, though she didn't do it on purpose.
1) Research wandless magic
2) Become a cat Animagus
3) Cast a True Patronus Charm while in a cat form
4) Awesome, now you can impersonate Patronus of McGonnagal and no members of Order of Phoenix can trust each other anymore!
5) Ask an Auror friend to destroy your Animagus form.
6) Become a spider Animagus
7) ???
8) Terrify people!
For this to work a wizard would need to be able to choose what Animagus form to take.
I'm fairly sure it would be easier to change your regular Patronus form than become an Animagus multiple times, even if you could choose what to become. As most people haven't learnt the True Patronus, they would be able to have animal Patroni.
Probably the only two things the True Patronus can look like are humans and snakes. Possibly flying squirrels?
What about parsley?
Since when does this universe have parsleymouths?
Lucius is pretty darn likely to have a snake patronus, yes. However, there is one other character we know of with a snake patronus. Slytherin himself. It is highly likely to be Draco - the timing is about right for him to learn Hermione died, but hey..
Quirrel is said to be unable to cast the Patronus, and the established explanations for how it works makes it likely that this is true. Anyway, Harry already talked to Quirrel; no need for a second encounter.
Even if that were the case, a Patronus delivers its message in the exact voice of the person who spoke to it, and as far as I know, that can't be falsified. This means that not only will we find out if it's Draco (almost certainly is), but we'll also know if he's in trouble or under duress (pretty likely; he's Harry's second best friend).
Even if Quirrel had somehow learned how to cast a Patronus (which seems unlikely), why would he need to use it to communicate with Harry now?
Am still sure it's Draco.
Perhaps Quirrel learned to cast a Patronus as a consequence of his discussion with Harry, in which case he may want to (1) say "thank you", and (2) discuss new plans that now seem meaningful to him.
However, Harry knows that Draco's snake is specifically a Blue Krait, and has seen it before. The probability that Quirrell would end up with a Blue Krait by pure chance is low.
The reference in the text doesn't state anything more than that it was a snake, not that it was a Blue Krait. We don't even get to see Harry's reaction, be it familiarity or perceiving it as novel.
The snake is described as "gleaming soft white" and "silver", which fits with the description of a patronus. And as it doesn't match the description of Quirrelmort's animagus snake "bright green and intricately banded in white and blue", it is clearly not Quirrelmort's animagus form.
While I assign a much higher probability that we just saw Drako's patronus, we can't rule out the possibility that it was someone else's patronus, including Quirrelmort, even though I see those odds as being exceptionally low.
Sorry, I thought you were implying that Harry might be deceived by Quirrell pretending to be Draco, not that you were making a comment on what we can predict about the next chapter.
Just because Harry saw the snake Patronus doesn't mean he recognizes the species. He probably could recognize the same Patronus, but maybe not; Harry paid more attention to it than a regular snake, but if I saw a snake once, and then saw another snake three months later, I don't think I'd be sure they were the same even if I did have reason to think they were.
True. Then again, Harry knew when he taught Draco that one of the uses of a Patronus is to carry unfakeable messages, for which you need to know exactly what the other person's Patronus looks like. Also, it's the snake on Lucius's cane, which we know he paid attention to. If he recognised Draco's snake as that snake, it would set it firmly enough in his mind that he might recognise it when he saw it again.
File under "more evidence needed".
The chance that Quirrell would do anything by pure chance is low.
It wasn't deliberate, but it wasn't coincidental either. Snape's Patronus was the same as Lily's because Snape loved Lily.
A good guess, if it's someone else than Draco. But where and when did that happen? Are you referring to Harry's comment "I thought of my absolute rejection of death as the natural order." in Chapter 46? Neither of the gentlemen present thought that was sufficient information for understanding how to cast a Patronus.
Even if that was sufficient understanding, neither of those gentlemen seem to absolutely reject death as the natural order. Nor, for that matter, do Harry or Eliezer. They reject death as proper and good, but I'm confident that most would admit that it is natural. The other people present don't seem to do that, though, and would be unlikely to be able to cast a True Patronus.