Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 25, chapter 96
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 96. The previous thread is at almost 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, 21, 22, 23, 24, .
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Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).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.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (524)
It's seems that McGonagall and Quirrell are responsible for Harry spending the day with Lupin, and that Dumbledore knows exactly what they're doing. It's not entirely clear whether McGonagall and Quirrell knew that Lupin would decide to take Harry to Godric's Hollow, but Quirrell at least could probably guess.
All three of these people knew what Harry would find on his parents' grave. I don't recall McGonagall ever encountering Harry's transhumanist ideas, but Quirrell and Dumbledore would certainly know how Harry would choose to interpret the inscription.
Which makes it look as though one or more of these people might be indirectly trying to encourage Harry's efforts to resurrect Hermione.
Quirrel did not know the lore of the Hallows, until Potter told him; at which point he discovered where the stone of resurrection was, and went to retrieve it. It seems to interfere a little too much that he then went on to study the whole lore to the fullest of his ability, seeing as he was not that interested in it from the beginning. (in canon, the gang learns of the symbol by talking to the father of Luna Lovegood, thats really not an obscure enough source for him to have missed)
The fact that Quirrell seemed not to know the symbol of the Deathly Hallows is very strange--the symbol is reasonably well-known in the wizarding world, as Grindelwald used it as his own. Which raises the question: was Quirrell's apparent failure to recognize the symbol an oversight on Yudkowsky's part, or an important clue?
Also, Quirrel doesn't know the story of Weasleys' Pet Rat. Did he spend a century in Albania or something?
As I interpreted canon: Canon!Voldemort also didn't recognize the symbol. Inference: Grindelwald studied the Deathly Hallows particularly and thus learned that symbol, to use as his own. The Deathly Hallows in general are well-known enough to have sayings like "Wand of elder, never prosper" but not the symbol.
I believe only Quirrel knows that Harry intents to ressurect Hermione as opposed to just researching immortality. As far as Dumbledore concerned, Harry is thinking about replicating Philosopher's Stone. I don't remember any hints about ressurection, only "rejecting Death as part of natural order".
(though disappearing of HG's body can give Albus some ideas, I guess)
I was wondering why/why not about the idea of Harry talking to Bathilda Bagshot in this chapter, and thoroughly convinced myself that Harry would have avoided doing so even had he thought about it (does he even know that she lives in Godric's Hollow?). The main reason would be that he believes that Dumbledore/Moody is watching him, which would vacate the point of talking to a historian over Dumbledore directly. The next biggest is that she most likely reports to Dumbledore, or has at least been warned that Harry would be there. The only gain that would come of it would be Harry getting to see what Grendelwald looked like when he was much younger, and that wouldn't be much if any use.
I still wonder if Bathilda knows any useful historical tidbits that Harry knows not, though. Doubtless he's read her books, but it wouldn't be surprising if there were some details useful to Harry that she (or her publisher) decided didn't belong there.
I'm re-reading HPMoR right now, I'm at chapter 31. I'm fuzzy on what happens in most of chapter 32 on.
Stupid question: is Quirrel Voldemort? I don't really care about spoilers.
What would it mean to "be" Voldemort? Quirrell seems to be entangled with past-Voldemort in some ways, but not in others.
I don't know... in the books, Quirrell was possessed by Voldemort or something. The omake implies that Eliezer changed this because Harry PEV would have been able to figure it out really quickly and there wouldn't have been a story. I thought that Quirrell just wasn't possessed in HPMoR, but in the recent discussion thread I saw a bunch of people saying "Quirrellmort", which confused me.
It's... not clear and there are a whole bunch of theories, including some in which multiple characters other than Quirrel are Voldemort.
The omake was to show how easily HJPEV could have won if Voldemort had remained exactly the same as in canon--living on the back of Quirrel's head, hidden by a turban, causing Harry pain whenever he looked in his direction, while the professors probably wouldn't stop Harry from reporting this to Dumbledore.
In Methods, we get Quirrel with zombie mode and rationalist mode, who causes Harry to feel a sense of doom, and McG warning him harshly that the defense professor is far too valuable to be investigated before the students can have a proper education for the first time in years. Also, Quirrel has a bald spot (does this correspond to where Facemort would have appeared in canon?).
Well, iirc in the books Quirrell was described as being a worldly Dark-ish badass before he became possessed by Voldemort, upon which he became very timid. The fact that HPMoR Quirrell's character matches the canon pre-Voldemort Quirrell, combined with explicitly noting that he wasn't wearing a turban, combined with the omake, seemed to me like Eliezer was basically saying "In this world, Quirrell did not become possessed by Voldemort and returned safely from his travels". I'm not really sure what the evidence to the contrary is.
I don't think you do rc, I'm afraid. He was basically a timid Muggle Studies professor with a latent interest in the Dark Arts. Definitely not worldly or badass in any way.
Which omake? Could you offer a link please?
See Omake #1 in chapter 11.
Short answer: Yes, but we still have no idea what that actually means.
Sorry, I should have added "and how do we know?"
Same way we know about the Pioneer Plaque.
Quirrell told Harry?
Va ybat-fvapr ergenpgrq nhgube'f abgrf, Ryvrmre znqr gur pbaarpgvba rkcyvpvg.
Oh, okay, thank you.
In addition to the rot13'd reason:
It's true in Canon.
Voldemort is the only one with a plausible motive to want Bellatrix Black out of Azkaban.
Quirrel drops a bunch of hints directly:
He says he has resolved his parental issues to his satisfaction, and he says they were killed by Voldemort.
After he got what he needed from the Muggle martial arts dojo, Voldemort comes along and destroys it. Later, when discussing the chamber of secrets with Harry, he mentioned that Voldemort would not leave an important source of power lying around for anybody else to use it, so he probably killed Slytherin's creature.
He tells his whole defense class that he used to want to be a dark Lord.
He tried to become the ruler of magical England by setting himself up as "David Monroe" against Voldemort. Later, once Harry wants to stop being stuck in Hogwarts, he suggests pretending to be Voldemort to set Harry up as a hero everyone else depends on.
He doesn't want Dumbledore to know whom he really is.
At the end of the Azkaban arc, it turns out that is a very large number of identities, so it's not particularly implausible to think that he is Voldemort too.
Also, mysterious feeling of doom. And Quirrel can sense Harry's feelings. And their magic can't interact.
www.rot13.com
Basically, yes.
Slightly pedantic answer: they're still different people, but Voldemort appears to be possessing Quirrell, through some means different than the means used in canon, so that it isn't too easy for Harry to figure out what's going on.
Fully nuanced answer: referring to the villain as "Voldemort" may be misleading, because in this version it appears the person who was born Tom Riddle has gone through all kinds of identities and personas and the "Voldemort" persona seems to be less important to him than in canon. Also, though I consider it unlikely, I'm not sure we can entirely ignore the possibility that Riddle magically forked himself, and there are multiple spirits descended from Riddle running around. Also, for all we know the original Quirrell could be flat-out dead, and Riddle (or this particular spirit descended from Riddle) grabbed the body of a random muggle to use while impersonating Quirrell (again, may not be terribly likely).
It's also possible that Voldemort/Quirrell isn't Riddle.
Wait, what? I don't remember reading this, or picking up on any hints of this. Care to explain?
I'm certainly not sure of this, but Quirrell certainly doesn't act like canon Riddle; and "Voldemort" doesn't even look human. He could easily be anyone. Maybe instead of Riddle killing Monroe and taking his place, Monroe killed Riddle and took his place. A smart, Slytherin Dark Lord wannabe like Quirrel would want to hide his true identity from his enemies.
So far the only evidence we have that Voldemort is/was Riddle is that Dumbledore/Moody/etc. think he is. They may be wrong about this. I strongly suspect they're wrong about Voldemort's motivations, and have been since the first war began. What else are they wrong about?
At this point, it would be the greatest fake-out in literary history if Quirinus Quirrell was actually just Quirinus Quirrell.
Surprise! It's actually Nymphadora Tonks!
Harry perhaps now recognizes himself not as an originator of a plot against Death, but as an intermediate result of that plot.
Alas, Harry does not know Old English.
I wonder if he'll ask Quirrell?
Harry could possibly decipher some of the meaning without asking. When seeing the original ("Thrayen beyn Peverlas soona ahnd thrih heera toal thissoom Dath bey yewoonen."), what did you make of it? I understood it was about Peverell sons and Death. The last word was somewhat reminiscent of German "gewonnen", but this Harry possibly doesn't recognize.
... I didn't realize it was actually a language, honestly. *mildly embarrassed* I realized it had something to do with the Peverells, but...
I probably would've realized it was a language if I had thought it through a bit more (My mental model of Eliezer wouldn't throw in gibberish, and it can't be a code if "Peverlas" is so easily encoded), but then the chapter ended and I saw the Old English (which I did recognize, ironically.)
Harry seems to have been aware of the Peverell brothers and the Deathly Hallows before all of this happened, and now it clicked for him that they made the Hallows in an attempt to defeat Death. But what I don't understand is, when exactly did Harry learn this story? If he ever heard the full story about the three Hallows, wouldn't that have been a big deal? He would have thought about it for a while and it would have been a major plot point right? EY has been really good about placing Chekhov's Guns long in advance of when they're fired, but I don't recall when Harry learned about the Peverell brothers for the first time.
I may attempt to go back and make it more explicit somewhere that Harry researched the Deathly Hallows (of course, he's not stupid) and found out at least the basic rumors. Hermione learned about the Cloak from An Illustrated Scroll of Lost Devices during their research, for example.
I think you should at least give a link to the relevant Youtube clip in A/N. I'm not sure readers unfamiliar with canon fully understand what is going on concerning Peverell brothers.
Thanks, I think it's just the fact that a lot of people who never really got into the canon are reading MOR, so plot points that can pretty much go unstated in regular fanfiction have to be re-introduced here. I know a lot of implications/references are lost on me because I'm reading fanfiction without actually being, well, a fan.
For those who don't know, the actual origin of "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" is Corinthians 15:26, specifically, the King James version.
It is unfortunately not true. Torture may very well exist after death is defeated.
Yeah, but those souls left in Hell and/or Purgatory post-Resurrection were asking for it.
It may be in your interest to clarify whether you're serious or making a sarcastic comment on Abrahamic religion, otherwise you may be undeservedly snowed under with downvotes.
The last one of {X; X is enemy && X shall be destroyed } is death.
It can be true assuming that the remaining enemies are indestructible.
Now I'm reminded of a quote from a similar work:
To conquer death, you only have to die.
Something similar happened to canon!Harry in book 7, after he had become the owner of all three Deathly Hallows...
Well, the Christus Victor theology of the resurrection of Christ is basically that Christ broke our slavery to death by going through the process Himself, which caused a divide by zero error and broke death permanently.
Tada!
Sounds legit.
Given the increasing number of prophecies that could refer to Harry, it's no wonder why Dumbledore refused to bring Harry to the Department of Mysteries. I mean, besides the possibility that he'd get knocked out by the storm of orbs. We know of four so far--at the time that Dumbledore refused to take Harry to the Hall of Prophecy, Harry only knew about the one.
What are the 4 again?
There was Trelawney's "all but a remnant" one, then her "he is coming!" one, and the one about the Peverells (which also applies to Harry). What is the fourth?
I was treating the "He is coming!" and "He is here!" as separate prophecies. Also assuming that the mass seer freak-outs at the end of chapter85 imply that Trelawney's might have been one of several in the same vein (I suppose we'll find out if there is international news of mass prophecies any time soon, dependent on international communication regarding prophecies).
Trelawney's third one: “He is here …” (end of chapter 89)
... wow.
New Predictions:
-Gur Erfheerpgvba Fgbar vf abg npghnyyl na rkgnag negvsnpg, be ng yrnfg abg havdhr. Uneel Cbggre jvyy ohvyq vg. (Evatzvbar?) (Zbqrengr-ybj pbasvqrapr)
-Zber trarenyyl, gur Qrnguyl Unyybjf ner abg arprffnevyl rkgnag negvsnpgf. Uneel jvyy ohvyq gurz, qhcyvpngr gurz, hctenqr gurz, be hfr gurz va jnlf gung zbfg crbcyr svaq uvtuyl habegubqbk va beqre gb qrfgebl Qrngu be erfheerpg Urezvbar. (Uneel unf gur Pybnx bs Vaivfvovyvgl, naq Qhzoyrqber vf fhttrfgrq gb unir gur Ryqre Jnaq, ohg jr qba'g npghnyyl xabj gung, naq tvira ubj inthr vg jnf va pnaba ur cebonoyl unf ab vqrn ubj gb hfr vg.) (Zbqrengr pbasvqrapr)
-Gur Pybnx bs Vaivfvovyvgl vf rira zber cbjreshy guna nalobql xabjf fb sne, naq npghnyyl unf sbezvqqnoyr nagv-qrngu qrsrafrf orlbaq zrer vaivfvovyvgl. Rivqrapr ntnvafg guvf vf gung Znq-Rlr Zbbql jnf noyr gb fgha Uneel frireny gvzrf
Zbbql fghaavat Uneel vfa'g xvyyvat uvz, gubhtu. V jbaqre jung unccraf vs lbh guebj Ninqn Xrqnien ng fbzrbar haqre gur Gehr Vaivfvovyvgl Pybnx?
Abcr gb 1. Qhzoyrqber jnaq vf rkcyvpvgyl qrfpevorq nf fgenatryl terl, Dhveery ergevrirq gur fgbar cbfgr unfgr nsgre trggvat gbyq ol Uneel nobhg gur flzoby.
Evidence? And as to the latter, it might not be real / not at full potential .
Pbhyq lbh cyrnfr rkcynva jung guvf zrnaf? V qba'g trg nal bs vg hagvy 'nsgre'.
Gur vqrn gung lbh pna fnir fbzrbar sebz qlvat ol pbirevat gurz ol Pybnx jnf gbffrq nebhaq sbe n juvyr.
Huh. I came up with it independently then. No significant counterevidence yet, although the Hallows seem to impart instructions to their master's minds.
Alternately: Lbh pna cerirag fbzrbar sebz qlvat be sbepr gurve fbhy gb or onpxrq hc fbzrubj (Fragvrag tubfg? VQX) ol pnfgvat n fhssvpvragyl cbjreshy Gehr Cngebahf ng gur zbzrag bs qrngu.
Skeptical of most of these, but I like the last one.
Wow, this was awesome! I wish I had read the canon so I would have had a chance to think about/predict what would happen when Harry read that inscription. This was just beautiful - a reminder of the heritage that transhumanists often forget we have. True, we have precious little tradition or precedent to fall back on - but in every generation in every era in every part of the world, there have been people who knew death for what it was and loathed it.
HPMOR is starting to be one tear jerker after another. I hope we'll get to see a couple more moments of levity, or - ideally - a moment of euphoria, when Hermione joins millions and millions of others we thought lost to history.
Edit: I really wish the word "pro-life" were available to describe this position.
Even "Resurrection" has been hijacked.
I've been in the habit of using "Mass True Resurrection," to make the D&D reference instead of the Christian one.
"Resurrection" has been taken for 2000 years, but for a few decades there we had a chance with "pro-life." :(
Quick! Grab the third best word and trademark it!
Seriously though, I think "transhumanism" is too long and jargon-y, not to mention understanding it requires some knowledge of both humanism and Latin roots. The ideology deserves a word that is as pure and simple as the emotions behind it.
I've been using "anti-death."
Lifeism.
Like racism, sexism, ageism,...? In a crowded world will "lifeist!" become a snarled curse at anyone not dutifully shuffling off stage after their threescore and ten?
To a non D&D-er like me, it still has the other connotations.
Sorry to burst your bubble but in canon it meant exactly as Lupin thought.
Which is a bit frustrating in a couple ways, seeing as Paul (the most popular candidate for the originator of said line) was talking about a literal resurrection of everyone, hopefully during his lifetime, and canon Harry then proceeded to defeat death by dying and coming back.
That was what frustrated me the most - how canon could preach to us about accepting death as inevitable while giving its main character the power to defeat death. It's sad that the narrative just accepts it as okay that the main character and the subject of the prophecy gets to be resurrected, but for anyone else to seek that would be folly.
No I know - that's why it would have been interesting to know about the inscription and consider how HJPEV would obviously interpret it differently :)
Sorry, just realized "That was just beautiful" was ambiguous - not the inscription, but Harry's reaction to it. The inscription could not possibly have had such a humanistic meaning in canon, I know.
Any guesses why Draco is contacting Harry?
Is that even Draco? I think Gung Uneel nppvqragnyyl gnhtug Dhveeryzbeg gb Cngebahf.
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.
Patroni have been previously claimed to be effectively unfalsifiable. I, for one, am certain it's from Draco.
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?
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.
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 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.
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).
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".
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.
Draco will have heard about Hermione's death by now and probably wants to express his condolence and/or tell Harry that he has made a resolution to side with Harry as soon as he can.
Versions already mentioned somewhere: "It was sad she died", "Harry, now you don't owe anything to House Malfoy anymore", "Father wants to disband Hogwarts because it's not safe anymore, Wizengamot vote is tomorrow".
My guess: the rationality-theme of this arc is roles, and this is relevant in almost every chapter. Probably something about Lucius playing a role of loving father instead of going off-script? Or Lucius playing the role of important Wizengamot member?
My second guess: it is connected to the (former?) belief of Lucius that Harry is Voldemort. Role of Death Eater overriding Lucius's neocortex?
Third guess: "Harry, you remember the vow you gave to me about murderer of Narcissa Malfoy? Listen carefully. I swore to find the murderer of Hermione Jean Granger and..."
Lucius is behind the murder of Hermione.
It's just over 24 hours since Hermione died - he probably just found out. It's the sort of reason you'd get in touch with a friend you used to know pretty well until recently.
I find myself confused by why Harry's interpretation of "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" is the logical one. The use of the word "last" in conjunction with Harry's interpretation either makes the statement pessimistic - that death is clearly more intractable than all our other problems, and thus will be last to be defeated - or implies that death logically takes the backseat to all other problems. I feel like the quote makes much more sense in the context of death being the final obstacle for each individual to grapple with and accept.
Overall I greatly enjoyed the sentiment of the chapter, and I found the incorporation of the Peverells to be especially clever, but the aforementioned line brings with it a great deal of friction.
It's a semantics thing. Once death is destroyed, no (human) enemy can be; they can be disabled, rehabilitated, but no enemy can ever be killed again, because nobody can ever be killed again.
The absolute end of Death also requires the absolute end of Endings.
The reminds me of Terry Pratchett. Both Hogfather and the Thief of Time have plots about ending time itself which would end Death.
I understand it as, "when death is defeated, there won't be real enemies anymore, because there is nothing so terrible someone can do to you or your friends if they can't kill". Of course it's not fully true, Neville's parents who were driven insane by torture are in a state as bad as death if not worse. But then, it can be considered that destroying their personality is killing them. And most importantly, it's a motto, mottos are always a bit oversimplification and exaggerating.
I definitely see much more twisting in understanding this motto as "destroyed" is just "make peace with" than as "last enemy" meaning that once death if defeated, there aren't any true enemies left.
I think it's kind of the video game concept of "the final boss." Every other enemy is lesser, you have to build up your strength in order to defeat Death. "The last enemy to be defeated" doesn't mean "Death is the last thing you should ever fight" or "Death has the lowest priority of all our enemies", but rather "Death is the ultimate enemy, the worst of all, such that when we defeat it our task is done."
It strikes me that this is even more obviously a turning point than it already is.
First: This is the first hint to Harry that he is not alone. All this story, Harry has been defined by his aloofness; the one person as "sane" as he is cannot be trusted, and for all that Hermione tries she's just more of a apprentice than a co-hero, she's not on the same scale that Harry acts on.
No longer. Harry knows, now, that there are more like him, and they too are smart, and competent, and they have gifts for him from hundreds of years in the past.
Second: This also solves one of the problems I had been worrying about, which was: How can Harry solve Death without it looking like a Deus ex Machina? Sanderson's First Law: magic cannot be used to solve a problem except where it is foreshadowed and constructed from existing effects. There's been a few ideas tossed around - Summon Death + True Patronus and the like - but they all seem to have... unhelpful side effects. (In particular, actually ending "Death" would be a bad thing, because Death kills bacteria as much as it kills humans. You want to destroy "Death of Humans" or come up with a mass-producible immortality elixir, not kill Death outright.)
Death, with a capital D, the one represented by Dementors, the one defeated by True Patronus means "destruction of a consciousness" in my understanding. It's why animals are unaffected by Dementors, why the Patronus charms are animals, ... so ending Death with a capital D would make prevent the destruction of a consciousness, but wouldn't prevent death (with a small d) of bacteria, plants, and most animals.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the thrust of your argument, but surely this wouldn't work in a reductionist universe like the one Harry believes he's living in, since there consciousness isn't a thing so much as a shorthand for certain electrical events in the brain? In other words, while humans differ from animals in having self-awareness, it is not the case that there is a thing called "consciousness" that humans have and animals don't. (cf. Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness)
Just because something is defined on a higher layer of abstraction doesn't mean that there is "no such thing", any more than there is "no such thing as an apple" just because physics doesn't draw object boundaries. Humans draw object boundaries, and in the HPVerse, magic listens to humans. I think the strongest thing you can say is "There is no such thing in reductionist physics as a consciousness", which is not the same as "consciousness doesn't exist" even in our universe, and doubly so in Harry's where magic gives concepts direct relevance.
The way I see Harry defeating death is more in the shape of casting a spell similar to Merlin's Interdict, a global enchantment, that saves the data that makes someone this person whenever a consciousness is terminated, and respawn it in a functional body. Such kind of global spell definitely can rely on high-level concepts such as "consciousness" or "self-awareness", exactly like the Interdict of Merlin relies on similar high-level concepts.
And where to draw the line for animals an implementation details, that is relevant in what Harry "should" do, but not in the core idea.
It also seems that magic already contains similar distinction in the AK spell, which doesn't seem to affect animals in MOR, and in the way only humans can create ghosts.
Don't remember it. Could you give a source?
From chapter 86 :
For Moody to believe that, it means either "animals have a soul" is a frequent belief among wizards, but then we would have had hints of it earlier, or it doesn't kill animals. That's how I interpreted it at least.
The killing curse works on animals in HPMOR. In Chapter 16, Quirrel tells the class that "The Killing Curse is unblockable, unstoppable, and works every single time on anything with a brain."
The view that "animals have souls" isn't particularly esoteric -- Aristotle asserted this, as did Thomas Aquinas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Aristotle). So I don't think we should have expected it to be explicitly mentioned.
Both Aristotle and Thomas think of animal souls (and plant souls!) as qualitatively inferior to human souls, but they do claim they exist.
If wizards believed animals had souls :
They would have had a different reaction in chapter 48 when Harry became a vegetarian after learning about parselmouth.
It would have been hinted in a way or another in the Prentending to be Wise arc, or otherwise in all the debate between Harry and other wizards about if soul exists.
In chapter 47 Draco wouldn't have be saying so seriously that muggles don't have souls.
That's not very strong evidence, I admit. But taken those 3 pieces of evidence, combined with the lack of any evidence pointing in the wide belief that animals have souls, it seems reasonable to assume the common belief among wizards is that animals don't have souls.
So it seems Quirrel and Moody are contradicting each other on how the Killing Curse actually works.
More likely still is that people really don't think on the matter much and so don't have well formed or necessarily consistent views of souls.
Demisouls? Alternatively, AK is only seeking and wall-penetrating against sapients but still instant death against animals (and therefore still useful since animals might be immune to stunning spells and durable enough to withstand physics spells.)
I believe that animals have brains, different from human brains mostly only in intelligence. and am not a vegetarian. Wizards probably think of muggles as having souls, and have been known in cannon to hunt them for sport. Slave masters definitely though of their slaves as having souls.
Why do you think this?
Touche. Draco is still an 11 year old put on the spot, so this is weak evidence.
Sure, but you can understand vegetarian, and a fair deal of humans are vegetarian. There isn't the slightest evidence of any wizard being vegetarian. If wizards actually believed animals had souls, not just brain, there would be more, not less, vegetarian wizards than vegetarian muggles.
Only a few wizards hunt muggle for the fun, the blood purist who actually believe that muggle don't have souls.
That's not really obvious. The Valladolid controversy is a clear example of the issue being actually disputed. And then again, the Hermiones opposed slavery. The Hermiones in HPMOR aren't vegetarian.
Quirrell explicitly states in this first class that it will kill anything with a brain.
What gave you the impression that AK didn't affect animals?
Doesn't QM go on for a while about how it allows a wizard to kill any threat other than a dementor?
As said in a later comment, Moody's explanation that AK directly strikes at souls.
Relevant quote, conversation with a Sorting Hat:
It seems that something broken was healed at last.
PS: Tangentially related to the Harry's inability to rely on others: chapter 31, chapter 70 (Maybe if there were more heroes, their lives wouldn't be so lonely, or so short.), chapter 93.
Would be interesting to see what would happen to Hufflepuff HPEJV. Probably would see the graveyard earlier...
... On a side note.
That's a prophecy. Which means it'd be recorded in the Hall of Prophecy.
I'm starting to wonder exactly how many very good reasons Dumbledore had for keeping Harry out of that Hall.
Reasons that seem good to him, anyhow.
Me? I'd very much like to see the fallout. ^_^
I predicted this way back in December. It seemed the most obvious explanation for Dumbledore's refusal to take him there.
The interesting thing is the recognition as Heir of the Peverells might open up even more prophecies, about he family itself instead of just about Harry. I wonder, if a Prophecy fails, does it jump to another person or is it repeated?
I don't speak Old English, unfortunately. Could someone who does please provide me with a rough translation of the provided passage?
It's at the bottom of the chapter. "Three shall be the Peverelle's sons, and three their devices by which death shall be defeated."
[edit] Originally misremembered the last word as "destroyed".
In case anybody else made the same mistake as I did, the two bits of Old English are the same.
and
According to the Olde English Translator, gewunen doesn't mean defeated or destroyed. It's the present subjunctive plural form of the verb gewunian, which means "to remain continue stand to habituate oneself to" which puts me in mind of "tolerate" or "get used to."
Vague stylistic thought - I don't have anything specific to base this on, but this chapter feels like something EY has been saving up, and is now throwing in as he's decided it's time to start the ending.
The same can definitely be said of the troll chapter.
It occurred to me while reading Chapter 96 that Voldemort is a descendant of Cadmus Peverelle, and Ignotus Peverelle is buried at Godrick's Hollow. My first impulse was to wonder if Voldemort would pop up and stab Harry at the end of this chapter (I quickly discounted it because of what Eliezer said about there being padding before the final arc and about ending on this sort of cliffhanger, rather than the in-universe reason of it being the wrong brother). Now I'm wondering if anyone knows where Cadmus is buried. I know Moody and Snape figured Voldemort disguised his father's actual grave, but that would have set off the Little Hangleton residents' vandelism alarms, unless he memory charmed everyone that knew anything about the graveyard (I suppose that's not beyond Voldemort, but if he knew of a better grave that no one else knew of...?).
Of course, it's entirely possible that "bone of the father" implies patrilineal descent, in which case Cadmus (and Salazar, for that matter) are disqualified and only a Riddle is viable.
Voldemort using the "bone of the father, flesh of the servant, blood of the ennemy" ritual is a fear of Dumbledore and Moody, but I don't think it's what he really is about. There would have been plenty opportunities for him to collect blood from Harry before. We don't know exactly what, there are several theories (like, making Harry lord of magical Britain and then possessing or controlling him), but Voldemort in HPMOR seems to have a much more complicated and ambitious plan about Harry than killing him/using his blood for a resurrection ritual.
He's already collected Harry's blood, but there's little point in performing the ritual before he's used up his current body.
There'd been some discussion of why HPMOR!Hogwarts was founded around 1200, as opposed to canon Hogwarts, which was "established around the 9th or 10th century." This chapter seems to make the reason clear: the founders were near-contemporaries of the Peverells, who kept their canon birthdates. Godric Gryffindor in particular seems likely to have been involved.
This is a quote from canon, in a scene where Harry is nearly possessed by Voldemort; it's Voldemort's memories of the night he died. It's italicized, as with Harry internal conversations, suggesting that this is part of Voldemort in Harry, remembering the night he died. (?)
It's interesting that Godric's Hollow was named after Godric, not Peverells. It seems that they weren't as famous as him, for some reason.
Perhaps transhumanism was already controversial in 1200, so a less controversial hero was selected for naming.
Probably not on the map, actually, but Godric was famous and spectacular.
My model of the Peverells has them substantially earlier than Hogwarts (because the Elder Wand seems like a more powerful artifact than the Sword of Gryffindor).
Aha! The prophecy we just heard in chapter 96 is Old English. However, by the 1200s, when, according to canon, the Peverell brothers were born, we're well into Middle English (which Harry might well understand on first hearing). I was beginning to wonder if there was not some old wizard or witch listening, for whom that prophecy was intended.
There's still the problem of why brothers with an Anglo-Norman surname would have Old English as a mother tongue... well, that could happen rather easily with a Norman father and English mother, I suppose.
And the coincidence of Canon!Ignotus Peverell being born in 1214, the estimated year of Roger Bacon's birth, seemed significant too... I shall have to go back over the chapters referring to his diary.
It strikes me as strange taking the words "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" as a family motto and manifesto, considering that it orginates from 1 Corinthians 15:26, concerning the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ's second coming and the abolishment of death. While it is similiar to Harry's goal, it certainly opposes it by way of means. Harry seeking the abolishment of death through mortal, albeit supernatural and magical, means opposes the divine plan of God. That Harry took this as a mission pasted down the Potter line generation to generation seems a lot more unlikely than it being a suitable epitaph on a gravestone.
It doesn't seem that unlikely given two facts :
Wizards don't seem to know much, nor care much, about Muggle religions. Having a reference to the Bible and Jesus Christ in a tomb of wizards strikes me as very unlikely.
The Potter family is descendant of one of the Peverell brothers, inheriting the Cloak of Invisibility, a Deathly Hallow from him. That makes "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" a more likely motto for the Potter family.
Wizards celebrate both Christmas and Easter. No idea why they would, but that is established in HPMoR and in canon. With the exception of Roger Bacon, we have not heard much of anything about religious witches or wizards, but it will strike me as strange the magical world has no religions, if only from the muggleborns and their descendants.
The quote "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" precedes the Peverell brothers by a solid millennia. While the Deathly Hallows is provides (weak) evidence in the other direction, even if it were a family motto, the origination is probably from the bible, as would be common from an old, heraldic family. Still, it is sounds like a suitable epitaph.
And of course, this presumes another deviation from canon, or to say a myth from canon, that the Peverell brothers created the Deathly Hallows, rather than receiving them from Death. Death, who exists in as a semi-sentient semi-being in HPMoR.
On a related note… What happened to the tattered cloak left by the Dementor in Chapter 45? May there be two True Cloaks of Invisibility?
Evidence, please?
Since Dementor cloaks don't appear to keep Dementors invisible in any way, this seems a bit of a leap.
Evidence would be the existence of Dementors, which are personifications of death and may or may not be semi-sentient.
As far as Christmas and Easter goes, the first of these specifically has a non-religious explanation in HPMoR:
No similar explanation has been given for Easter, but I think it's reasonable to suppose that one exists.
I took that passage to indicate the tradition of green and red colors during Christmastide, not of the origination of any holiday,
Canon strongly implies that the original story was a dramatization of the story of the Peverells, who actually just made powerful artifacts, iirc. Also, dementor cloaks probably aren't invisibility cloaks, since people and other dementors can see cloaked dementors.
I thought those were ordinary cloaks, probably given to the Dementors by the Aurors, to make them look more... presentable. The cloaks are destroyed by the Dementors' presence, as all matter is, and have to be replaced.
Given the timing, it seems more likely in-universe that the particular English translation of that bible passage was lifted from the wizard motto.
It's a fairly literal translation. I think the most likely option is that the Potter motto was first taken from the Bible in Latin, and at some point after the completion of the King James Bible (in the 1600s) the motto was updated to English.
The Peverells were, after all, contemporaries of Godric Gryffindor (at least in the HPMoR universe), so they would've been all over the Latin mottoes.
The motto is in Old English in the story, presumably dating from the time of the Peverells. It may have been taken from the bible verse, but then your own argument raises the question, why didn't they write their motto in Latin?
The Old English is the prophecy, not the motto.
Right, I stand corrected.
I was actually under the impression that the Perverells lived before Merlin.
To be honest, I've just been getting this idea from things other people have said. But in canon (apparently according to the book Harry Potter Film Wizardry), Ignotus Peverell was born in 1214, and I've found no evidence that this is different in HPMoR.
EDIT: Apparently it is different.
Hogwarts, on the other hand, was founded over a thousand years ago according to the Harry Potter books, while in HPMoR it is repeatedly stated to be eight hundred years old.
I am confused.
The particular Bible passage was written in Greek a solid millennia before Hogwarts was built, it was available in Latin at least since the 4th century (Latin being the language of the educated post-Roman Empire, and the language which magic seems to be based off of), and, according to a quick Wikipedia search, translated into Old English by the Venerable Bede in the 7th century.
You may be thinking of the Gospel of John, which Bede translated shortly before his death. As far as I can tell, there was never an Old English translation of 1 Corinthians, and if there was it was not well-known.
There has previously been some speculation that the dark lord in Harry's birth prophesy is death rather than Voldemort. I think this interpretation just got a lot stronger.
James and Lilly had defied Voldemort but not death. The new lines back an interpretation that the Peverells thrice defied death with the three deathly hollows and Harry is born to the Peverell line.
This is, in some ways, a more natural interpretation of that clause since James and Lilly were in the Order and were defying Voldemort on a daily basis not just 3 times. The line of the Peverells makes the number three make sense rather than being arbitrary.
Nice connection
Nice idea, but how does death mark someone as his (its) equal? Surely not just by killing his friends, else a substantial fraction would be "the equal of death", which doesn't seem right.
Hmm. How about:
The destroyer of the world would be Death's equal. Being killer of Death itself wouldn't be too shabby either.
I don't have trouble believing that Harry is Death's equal, but this doesn't explain how he was marked by Death as his equal. The Killing Curse bouncing off for whatever reason might be the best explanation. The scar is Death's mark, not Voldemort's. That seems a bit...forced, but it does explain why Quirrellmort hasn't done anything besides kill Rita Skeeter and free Bellatrix Black only to never speak of her again. Death has struck many times, and has been the focus of Harry's rage and obsession, Voldemort has more than once faded into the background and seemed ambiguously an ally. Another reason to believe that the enemy is Death and not Voldemort is that Voldemort was defeated, as far as we know - he's not the Lord of anything anymore - while Death most certainly still reigns.
But to look at counterarguments - what if the mark we're talking about is not the scar at all? If the Dark Lord really is Voldemort, it's a bit silly to think that Voldemort would acknowledge a baby as his equal. Once Harry came to Hogwarts, Quirrell certainly recognized his rationality and intelligence, and marked him, if only psychologically, as his intellectual equal. "We're not like the rest of them, you and I..."
I'm still leaning toward the interpretation of Death as the Dark Lord, if only because I have no idea what Voldemort can pull in the next seven to ten chapters that would make him definitively the most important enemy presence in the story.
The Patronus?
Great idea, but what of the rest of the prophecy ?
That I can't think how to interpret it... how did Death mark Harry his equal ?
That could be any of love, rationality, or hope, the most common hypothesis of what powers Harry have.
The remnant would be memory then ? If death defeats Harry, Harry is dead, but people will still remember him, probably for a long while, and if Harry defeats death, the memory that death existed will stay forever in everyone. Or the remnant of death would be death of non-sentient beings ?
[tinfoil hat]
Suppose that Killing Curse just bounced off the night Voldemort died, just refused to work for some reason. If "magically embodied preference for death over life" haven't worked on someone, I would pretty much say that it means something.
Also, possible foreshadowing in chapter 5:
Funny to think about, but probably I just see patterns where there are none.
My a bit stretched interpretation is that Bayesian Conspiracy and Chaos Legion are Harry's remnants.
[/tinfoil hat]
In HPMoR universe there is a ritual for summoning Death. Unless it is an euphemism for casting area-wide avada kedavra, it could mean Death is a person. A super-dementor or something. (In a world with magic, patronuses, dementors, cloaks that can hide their owner from death... why not?)
Words "shall mark him" are future tense. Maybe it didn't happen yet. It could happen after Harry (or someone else) summons Death. Probably after or during the magical FOOM.
(How exactly does killing the Death-person stop people from dying, I have no idea. I guess it is just another kind of magic. Or perhaps Harry will somehow stop people from dying, and the Death-person will try to stop him, e.g. by dispelling his magic.)
Ritual for summoning Death is just reference to the spell of Seething Death from one of the Lawrence Watt-Evans books.
Or the Rite of Ashk'Ente from Discworld.
Or it's the ritual to create dementors. Quirrel says that "the spell to dismiss Death is lost" and nobody knows how to destroy a dementor.
Dementors symbolise death. Dementors can destroy humans (by their kiss), and Harry can destroy dementors (by True Patronus). That if anything marks him as Death's equal. If not, dementors obeying him can be understood as him being Death's equal.
Yes, I was going to point out that "Make him go away," surely marked him as a monster or source of terror in someone's eyes.
I strongly agree, but I'm still left wondering how to interpret the rest of the prophesy:
Edit: The prophesy still seems to be a good fit for Quirrelmort for this second half, but Death for the first half. I'm left wondering if there is some important relationship between Death and Quirrelmort that may resolve this.
We know that Quirrelmort is afraid of death (as is Harry's dark side), and that Harry is entirely sympathetic to that view. Voldemort/Riddle/Monroe seem to have an aging effect on Quirrel's body. Could it be that Voldemort/Riddle/Monroe have engaged in some sort of arrangement with Death to secure their own immortality? This would make the Quirrelmort character both ally and enemy of Death, and complicate the interpretation of the prophesy as well as Harry's course of action.
Oddly, I feel like each line in this prophecy could equally well point to Dark Lord as Voldemort OR Dark Lord as Death.
Although P(Dark Lord as Death) should get a complexity penalty since Voldemort should be the default candidate due to canon.
EDIT: The last sentence is wrong. What I should've said is that since Voldemort is the prophecy's referent in canon, and he is called the Dark Lord in both canon and hpmor, I'm still assigning >50% probability to Quirrellmort being the entity referred to in hpmor's prophecy.
This is a misuse of jargon.
Since it seems like these two explanations fit this specific piece of evidence (roughly) equally well, and we know that Quirrelmort is the entity referenced by the prophecy in canon, and that Voldemort is called the Dark Lord in both canon and hpmor, then why wouldn't Dark Lord as Death get a 'complexity penalty'?
If I'm using it wrong, please explain.
Complexity means it requires additional things to happen even if you had no evidence.
For example, a more complex hypothesis than "Bob is a human" is "Bob is a human who lives at 123 Fake St."
Voldemort being called the dark lord is evidence, and learning about new evidence does not itself make a hypothesis more or less complex. It's just evidence.
You're right. Thanks for the correction!
You are talking about prior probability. P(Dark Lord is Death|no specific background information) roughly equals to P(Eliezer changes things from canon), which isn't very large; so after updating both with a equally favorable piece of evidence "Death is Dark Lord" is still behind "Voldemort is Dark Lord".
You can assign prior probabilities in various ways, and one of them is giving every hypothesis an appropriate complexity penalty (or you can just judge everything as equally likely, or give everything a simplicity penalty, or penalize every hypothesis according to how many people it affects, or...). Some ways are better than others, but:
1) Why "complexity penalty" should work in fiction, even in a rationalist fiction?
2) Why hypothesis "Voldemort is Dark Lord" is simpler than "Death is Dark Lord" in the sense of program length? One can argue that the former hypothesis points to the specific human from a pool of a 6 billion people (or 100 billion, if you want to consider every human ever lived) while the latter talks about some entity likely to be very basic from the Magic viewpoint.
Hope that clears some of confusion!
Because there will still be an infinite (countable) number of finite hypotheses which could be considered and only a finite amount of probability to divide among them, which necessarily implies that in the limit more complicated hypotheses will have individual probability approaching zero. This will be true in the limit even if you define 'complexity' differently than the person who constructed the distribution.
Thing of note:
Harry in chapter 86:
The prophecy can be interpreted in two ways: "Harry fights Voldemort" and "Harry fights Death" (ignoring more exotic ones like "Harry is Dark Lord and Quirrel is the hero").
At this point, both positions are justified. Yes, some lines look strange if we assume "Harry fights Death" point of view, but some lines look strange if we assume "Harry fights Voldemort" point of view: just look at chapter 76. The passage above suggests this is normal.
I find myself in a doubt about which interpretation is correct, and it looks like this is exactly as Eliezer wanted it.
Voldemort's name means "full of death". (Maybe "thief of death".) Perhaps Voldemort made himself a personification of Death in order to personally avoid it, seeking for himself alone what the Peverells sought for all?
"Three shall be Peverell's sons and three their devices by which Death shall be defeated."
When I first saw this line, I didn't think it was very important, but could it mean that Harry is actually going to use the three Deathly Hallows to defeat death, i.e. make everyone immortal?
I confess, I hadn't paid that much attention to the possibility, because the canonical Deathly Hallows don't seem well-suited for the purpose. But I suppose there could be some effect where when the Elder Wand is used to cast the Patronus 2.0, you get an Uber Patronus, or maybe it lets you lets you kill a hundred Dementors without depleting your own life force, or something. And I suppose the Resurrection Stone could easily get an upgrade from canon. But how could the Invisibility Cloak be used as part of the process of granting immortality, beyond hiding from Dementors? Could hiding from Dementors become really important at the climax somehow? Doesn't seem like it, if the Elder Wand + Patronus 2.0 takes care of the Dementors, hmmm...
Just remembered a serious objection, originally from Tarhish on reddit:
(from here, it's only 4 months old, you still can upvote that)
This argument can be somewhat handwaved away by "James is ascendant of Ignotus Peverell, and prophecy talks about several possible futures", but still.
My largest problem with the Dark Lord == Death theory is that it doesn't really square with Quirrelmort being another super-rationalist and Eliezer's First Law of Fanfiction (You can't make Frodo a Jedi unless you give Sauron the Death Star). Either Quirrelmort is a henchman or personification of Death, which is unlikely considering he is afraid of dying and the dementor try to frighten him in the Humanism arch. Or Quirrelmort is not the Sauron of this story but will help Harry to defeat the main bad guy Death. This could be a really cool ending, but I doubt that it would fit in the remaining arch.
I'm not sure I follow the second sentence. It doesn't seem responsive to the first.
People don't know how to pretend to care, thus them being terrible at it - see, for example, not even spending five minutes to try to think of a way to bring their friends back to life.
Right, but how would they even know that caring is the thing they're supposed to pretend to do?
Because if you care about someone else (i.e. put a value on protecting and aiding that person), you become a resource worth preserving to that person.
What is meant by the three sons? Harry, Draco, and someone else? Quirrell perhaps? Using the three Deathly Hallows?
I don't think they'll go this route, but the three heirs to Gryffindor and Slytherin (Fred, George, and Harry)?
I interpreted this to mean that long ago, there were 3 Peverell brothers, each of which created one of the Hallows. Harry is descended from this family. Note that it doesn't say that "Pevererll's sons" will necessarily be the ones to use their devices to defeat Death, only that the devices are theirs.
Just spelling out that we have a much better idea now what the first lines of the book mean:
The silver likely refers to:
This is going to be vitally important in the future. Thoughts on what it could be?
Storehouse of lost knowledge from the Peverells is my guess, perhaps their notes or a Slytherin-esque way around the Interdict.
If not, the notes would be enough for Harry to start brainstorming a way around the Interdict.
(By the way, tags on the opening post are wrong. There should be a tag reading "harry_potter", not two separate tags for the first and last name.)
Does Harry already know or suspect at this point that Dumbledore has the Elder Wand? Either way, this looks like a piece of foreshadowing worth paying attention to regarding Dumbledore's fate.