You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Eponymuse comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 17 March 2012 09:41AM

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

Comments (1174)

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

Comment author: Eponymuse 25 March 2012 02:43:18AM *  2 points [-]

Some of them will magically disappear every hour until only one remains, but imagine the firepower!

They wouldn't disappear. They would, after a period, go back in time in order to become one of the other people in the battle.

Using a time turner to make clones in battle is a very, very dangerous idea. Harry has been warned, strenuously, by Professor McGonnagal that he should not directly interact with himself, and we have an anecdote about an auror/criminal pair that went insane because they abused time turners. I imagine that one of the more stable time loops would involve the original Dumbledore/Harry getting disabled before going back in time for the first time.

But yeah, the cloning objects thing is a reasonable use of a Time Turner.

Edit to add: If by collaborating on tricky problems, you are referring to e.g. academic problems, rather than problems of strength, this amounts to a rather absurd charade. If you use a Time Turner to put 6 copies of yourself in a room, and in an hour they succeed in answering the problem, that means that at the beginning of the hour, 5 of them already knew the answer.

Comment author: DanArmak 25 March 2012 03:11:40AM 3 points [-]

They wouldn't disappear. They would, after a period, go back in time in order to become one of the other people in the battle.

I realize that. For other observers' practical purposes, they would disappear.

Using a time turner to make clones in battle is a very, very dangerous idea. Harry has been warned, strenuously, by Professor McGonnagal that he should not directly interact with himself

Meh, she worries about that kind of thing too much.

Comment author: Logos01 28 March 2012 02:50:52AM 2 points [-]

There are ways to compute problems such that you do not know the information you are computing. Homomorphic Encryption for example.

Comment author: Eponymuse 28 March 2012 04:08:16AM 0 points [-]

Good point, though I don't think this would ever be useful. In the unlikely scenario that Time-Traveling Tom has a problem amenable to a straightforward, parallelized algorithm which requires six Tom-hours while Tom needs the solution within two hours, he may as well just go back six hours, "thread" his thoughts, not bother with any communication.

Comment author: Logos01 28 March 2012 04:52:22AM 0 points [-]

Well... there are other such scenarios. Spend 6 hours brainstorming on an idea. Only mention FAILED ideas aloud amongst your fellow Turn-clones. Do so in a manner that requires "keying" to what specifically you're thinking about at the time. (Such as minutes-into-the-hour). After 6 iterations, acquire profit.

This has the added advantage that it follows the "DO NOT MESS WITH TIME" restriction of following by rote.

Comment author: Eponymuse 28 March 2012 02:05:27PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "keying." Could you elaborate, and explain how you end up with a scenario that is more stable from "Time's perspective" than, say, clone #5 just summarizing all the ideas at the beginning of the hour? The scenarios I can come up with seem to involve information magically appearing (which the universe doesn't seem to like, as in Harry's integer factorization algorithm), or fail to provide a benefit over just thinking on one's own for six hours.

Comment author: Logos01 28 March 2012 04:23:03PM 0 points [-]

clone #5 summarizing means clones 1-4 never actually have the ideas, but cannot contribute any further to the solution-space beyond claiming they had those ideas. This doesn't create an additive effort to deriving a desired answer from the available solutions-space of your problem.

By "keying" I mean something that informs other iterations of the idea you're currently having and its invalidity without telling them the idea. "The thought I had at 5:14 -- it won't work. Move on."

This allows all six iterations to contribute towards deriving a viable answer without running into loops which require recursion to reach a stable state, which seems to be the kinds of loops that the Turners don't allow. (Helping a previous version's okay as long as they don't know where the help is coming from; but factoring integers instantly is not.)

Comment author: Eponymuse 28 March 2012 07:21:50PM 0 points [-]

I see. So I guess there is some benefit gained from this, but it is very minor. It seems to me that the simplest rule that explains why Harry's integer factorization is not okay, but, for example, the "silver on the tree" password from the end of TSPE is okay, is the following: if you would gain information at time T, and send information from time T to any time S < T, then it must be the case that you would have gained that same information even if you hadn't learned it at time S.

Now consider your "keying" scenario. We have clones 0-5, and at time 1 clone x goes back to time 0 and becomes clone x+1. When clones give a "time key," it will be a number between 0 and 6, identifying a clone/wall-clock pair. Now suppose at wall-clock time T clone 1 says: "the thought I had at time P doesn't work." Assume for simplicity that time P refers to clone 0 at a wall-clock time S > T (though it would work out the same anyway). Now at time S, when clone 0 has the thought, he has two choices. On the one hand, he can continue working out why it doesn't work, but in this case he gains only the minor benefit of knowing in advance that it will not work out. On the other hand, he can move on and not consider the thought, but at time T as clone 1 just repeat (without knowing why), the fact that it doesn't work. In that case, he gained information that he would not have learned had he not told himself. Or, in your terminology, recursion was required in order to reach a stable state.

Comment author: Logos01 29 March 2012 01:33:13AM 0 points [-]

then it must be the case that you would have gained that same information even if you hadn't learned it at time S.

that doesn't follow. Where would Harry have gotten the pies if not from Harry+1?

In that case, he gained information that he would not have learned had he not told himself. Or, in your terminology, recursion was required in order to reach a stable state.

The recursion is non-iterative beyond the number of loops actually manifested, however. Each individual only adjusts the one previous, and only in immediately non-iterative manners. "Nope. Nope. Nope. Maybe. Nope. Nope. Maybe."

That lets you prune out failed items but doesn't recurse back to an instantaneous success.

Comment author: Eponymuse 29 March 2012 02:00:52AM *  0 points [-]

that doesn't follow. Where would Harry have gotten the pies if not from Harry+1?

He got them from the breakfast table. Where did he get the idea to get them? Well, he would have seen the pies later on anyway. Just like he would have learned about time turners later on in the day anyway, but a more stable scenario was obtained by learning about them earlier.

The recursion is non-iterative beyond the number of loops actually manifested, however.

I'm not quite sure how to parse this. If you would think about an idea at time T, but don't because future you tells you it won't work out, that means your whole thought process going forward has completely changed. But maybe the thing you start thinking about instead doesn't work out, so someone warns you about the idea at time T+epsilon. And so on. So if you are proposing that Time works by iterating through a number of scenarios until you get to something stable, the situation you've pointed to "requires recursion." (It's worth pointing out that Harry, when he gets his Time Turner, doesn't think this is a likely answer to how Time works.) But perhaps I am not understanding you correctly?

My main objection to the scenario you are proposing, though, is that you are gaining information as a result of some work, but that work is never performed. Try taking your scenario to its logical extreme. You sit in a room with one copy of future-you, and a large composite number N on a sheet of paper. On scrap work hidden from future-you, you write down an integer K. If you are not told that K does not divide N, you check. If it does, you keep track of the factor of N you have found. In any case, you then systematically select a new integer K' to check for divisibility. Once you have a complete factorization, you sit quietly, and at the end of the hour you go back in time. Then, you let past-you know the "keys" for all of the integers that weren't factors. Thus, you must have ended up only trying actual factors. So, you have a slightly more complicated version of Harry's factorization algorithm.

Edit to add: I guess this situation actually still is still an exponential time algorithm, since you still have to consider every possibly integer. But you could do, for example, graph isomorphism testing in polynomial time with a similar method: try constructing a map by first finding what vertex 1 should map to. Future you says "nope, nope, maybe," and on "maybe" you try to figure out where to put vertex 2, given that vertex 1 maps to whatever. If the graphs are not isomorphic, future you will say "no" to every choice for vertex 1, so you have your answer in polynomial time. Otherwise, you will construct the isomorphism in polynomial time.

Comment author: Logos01 29 March 2012 02:55:50AM *  0 points [-]

He got them from the breakfast table.

No. That's where Harry+1 got them. Harry did not.

I'm not quite sure how to parse this.

Six turnings of the Turner at T=0 results in the same 1-hour segment being looped into 6 times. This allows six iterations -- but those iterations do not recurse beyond the actual number of loops.

< is that you are gaining information as a result of some work, but that work is never performed.

That doesn't follow. How do you figure?

Comment author: TobyBartels 01 April 2012 06:13:39PM 0 points [-]

Most of the replies to this comment no longer appear on the main page of the topic, no matter how many buttons I push.

Comment author: TobyBartels 31 March 2012 04:37:00AM 0 points [-]

Harry has been warned, strenuously, by Professor McGonnagal that he should not directly interact with himself

I forget if we're discussing MoR or canon, but either way I object. In canon, my objection is pedantic: it's Hermione who was warned, and she only later passed on that warning to Harry. In MoR, Harry has interacted with himself, a few times, and while they didn't all go well, there were no disasters.

Comment author: pedanterrific 31 March 2012 05:37:28AM 2 points [-]

Not that strenuously:

"Correct, I think," said Professor McGonagall. "Although wizards are advised to avoid being seen by their past selves. If you're attending two classes at the same time and you need to cross paths with yourself, for example, the first version of you should step aside and close his eyes at a known time - you have a watch already, good - so that the future you can pass. It's all there in the pamphlet."

"Ahahahaa. And what happens when someone ignores that advice?"

Professor McGonagall pursed her lips. "I understand that it can be quite disconcerting."

Comment author: Eponymuse 31 March 2012 03:32:43PM 0 points [-]

You're right, I misremembered. Still, I think there is a lot to suggest that interacting directly with one's time-clones (as opposed to waiting with one's eyes closed while a clone drops off a message, for example), particularly in battle, is a bad idea. You would never observe a future-you doing something ineffective in combat---failing to dodge or block, or casting an ineffective spell, for example---since, after observing that mistake, you would be prepared for it in the future. So the only consistent possibilities involve losing or running away before you can go back in time, or winning right away.

But, since you know these are the only consistent possibilities, if you showed up to a battle intending to use a Time Turner and didn't see your time clones appear at the very beginning, you would deduce that you would not win, and therefore (if you could) you would run away. So, I expect that from Time's perspective, the most stable solution for people who intend to use Time Turners in battle is for them to not do battle at all.

Comment author: Eponymuse 31 March 2012 03:14:11PM 0 points [-]

He has never interacted directly with himself in a way that involves seeing a copy of himself, or coordinating actions in real-time, as would be the case in a battle. Harry has so far always heeded Professor McGonnagal's advice, and looked the other way when his time clones are around. Though, as pedanterrific points out, I have overstated the severity of McGonnagal's warning.