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Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).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Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).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

Regarding 2- possible explanations. First, it is possible that Dumbledore knows already about some set of Time-Turner use which is about to happen for (from his standpoint) completely separate legitimate reasons. Second, it is possible that there's no easy way to check if a Time Turner has been used other than to see if it can still be used (see the earlier instance where they checked if Harry's Turner had been used by having him deliver a specific message to the past), and given the precarious nature of the situation, Dumbledore doesn't want to waste any of Harry's Time-Turner hours if he can avoid it.

there's no easy way to check if a Time Turner has been used other than to see if it can still be used

If the turner also has a restriction[1], it’s easy to check: just ask someone not important to try to use it. (Not important in the sense that it’s no big deal if they loose the ability to time-turn for a day).

[1:] It should have. They can be broken/destroyed, which suggests that they can also accumulate non-fatal damage (like scratches), which technically means that they also carry information to the past. But the information rules don’t seem to apply except when in some cases involving sentience.

0bogdanb13y

Wait a moment, is it the Time-Turner or the user who is limited to six hours?