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.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, July 2014, chapter 102

7 Post author: David_Gerard 26 July 2014 11:26AM

New chapter!

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 102.

There is 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.) 

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Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).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

Comments (370)

Comment author: luser 16 January 2015 09:54:11PM 1 point [-]

As horcruxes were explained they are quite substantial evidence that quirrel is not voldermort.

If voldermort could use them then he would take over world in year, He would first kidnap two wizards to make copy of himself which would be loyal to him and would quickly relearn all spells and kindap four other wizards and grow exponentially.

So likely explanation is as Quirrel said personality is completely different and after first forking to quirrel decided to fight voldermort and they do not try copy himself again.

Comment author: Velorien 17 January 2015 12:17:44PM 1 point [-]

Why would Voldemort's copies be loyal to him? If they share Voldemort's personality, then they also share his desire to dominate, and the original was never known for willingness to share power.

Comment author: Leedtan 25 December 2014 11:53:29PM 0 points [-]

I think quirrel is Harry from the future. Harry decided not to mess with time until he's older, but maybe once he's older he realized that he can break the time travel restriction rules and travel years into the past. This could possibly explain why quirrel knows so much about Harry. It also explains their magic interaction possibly. This would also explain how quirrel is so rational, whereas it would be surprising that Harry would randomly run into someone as rational as himself in the small number of people he's met in the wizarding world. Quirrel could've even been the one who gave petunia the potion, thereby using that one difference (Harry traveling back in time) to explain multiple differences between hp and hpmor.

Any thoughts on my theory are welcome, I'm curious if this is a commonly held belief. Maybe the source of magic showed Harry a way to perform time travel that could exceed the (6 hour?) duration.

Comment author: avichapman 06 January 2015 02:42:52AM 0 points [-]

Quirrel had a very low opinion of science and didn't seem to appreciate the power it confers until the most recent chapter - which doesn't gel well with what we know of Harry. Of course, future-harry could be lying about that when interacting with his past self, but that would require a complexity penalty against the hypothesis.

Comment author: Gorak 18 October 2014 07:23:18AM *  0 points [-]

Hypothesis: Harry lives in a close to post-singularity universe. The source of magic is a boxed AI, created by the Atlanteans and Harry himself.

Currently, the boxed AI can be manipulated by means of spells, potions and rituals and is acting as a limited outcome pump. Harry, in his quest to end death, will release the AI from the box, thus bringing about a true singularity end state and the foretold end of the universe as we know it.

The method through which Harry will achieve this (releasing the boxed AI while simultaneously being partly responsible for its creation by the Atlanteans in the past) will be a trick using multiple time turners and something like the algorithm Harry invented in chapter 17 for solving an NP complete problem coupled with Timeless Decision Theory.

If you build a device capable of factorising in less than polynomial time, you have a major building block of a supercomputer. If you can do it in negative time (solution before input) you've built an AI. Harry attempted this in chapter 17 but was stopped by a future Harry with the admonishment "DO NOT MESS WITH TIME" which Harry resolves to obey until age 15. That intervention could have been from an even further future Harry.

The theft of Hermione's body could also have been conducted by an even further future Harry which allows him to pass the questioning of the headmaster.

If Harry can figure out how to bypass the limitations of the time turner, that is all he needs to do to bring about the scenario I outlined, and build an outcome pump that will restore Hermione, be established as the source of magic in the past and the bringer of the singularity in the future.

I assign 60% confidence to this hypothesis.

Comment author: 75th 10 December 2014 09:53:17PM *  0 points [-]

So your hypothesis is that Harry will win by doing the thing he already tried and failed to do, and got a stern warning from the Universe for trying. The one thing that he can't do, that's the thing he'll do.

Okay, except you've not done the work. If Eliezer puts a huge road block in front of an obvious solution to the story — "NOPE, can't do that, sorry" — and your hypothesis is "No he'll do it anyway", then the actual work is not just saying he'll do it (since the story explicitly states the insane power Harry would have if it did work; it's not like that's a big discovery itself) but rather saying how we get from our current state of impossibility to the state where Harry pulls it off.

"If Harry can figure out how to bypass the limitations of the time turner" — that dismissive 'If' is the entire problem you should be trying to solve.

Comment author: buural 20 August 2014 05:58:28AM 4 points [-]

Has anyone compiled a list of Chekhov's guns that haven't been fired yet in the story so far? Off the top of my head, I have:

  • Bacon's diary
  • Bellatrix Black
  • Sirius Black (incidentally a candidate for the Cloak and Hat, who possibly knows limitations of the Marauders' map)
  • Traps on the third floor
  • Significance of Dumbledore writing in Lily Potter's potion's book
  • Lesath Lestrange
  • Harry's 'shopping list' given to Gred and Forge
  • The missed glint in the Godric's Hollow graveyard
  • Chamber of Secrets / Salazar's snake?
  • Secrets of spell creation (which Quirrel is so keen on keeping away from Harry)

Anything else?

Comment author: DanArmak 01 September 2014 07:51:29PM 0 points [-]

Some of these have been explained / fired already. I think most people agree that:

  • Sirius Black is not Hat and Cloak, because H&C was Quirrel; I think this is pretty definite.
  • Traps on the third floor are an obvious trap for a Dark Lord foolish enough to try stealing the Philosopher's Stone, which Quirrel is not, because he realizes it isn't there.
  • What Dumbledore wrote in Lily Potter's potions book was advice she used to help her sister. Which was a risky, stupid, Griffindor / Dumbledorian thing to do. The horrible secret is that not that Dumbledore sneaked into the girls' dorms at night (presumably he found a different opportunity to write in the diary) but that Dumbledore caused Lily to help her sister, which caused Petunia to marry Professor Michael Verres-Evans instead of Vernon Dursley, even though a centaur told Lily doing this would cause the world to end, which is now about to happen. And this caused the HP:MOR universe to branch from the canon Harry Potter universe.
  • There's nothing interesting left in the Chamber of Secrets, because the Dark Lord killed Salazar's snake and removed any portable artifacts.
Comment author: buural 02 September 2014 02:34:53AM 0 points [-]
  • I too agree that Quirrel is H&C with the highest probability. However, I would not assign zero probability to Sirius Black either, hence I wrote he was a candidate, not the candidate for H&C.

  • I think it has already been implied in the text several times that the Philosopher's Stone is in fact still in Hogwarts. Granted, it may not be behind those particular traps on the third floor.

But Master Flamel has said - that even he can no longer keep safe the Stone - that he believes Voldemort has means of finding it wherever it is hidden - and that he does not consent for it to be guarded anywhere but Hogwarts. Minerva, I am sorry, but it must be done - must! 

  • The above quote makes me think of what is so special about Hogwarts that it alone can protect the Stone. It is not likely to be merely presence of Dumbledore (or he could easily be carrying it with him everywhere he goes). Something unique about Hogwarts allows it to safeguard the Stone even from Voldemort who supposedly can always divine its whereabouts. My working hypothesis is again that Hogwarts is a jumble of multiple versions of itself from different timelines/realities. If this hypothesis is true, then the Chamber of Secrets is hidden in time, so a version of it with a live snake may still exist.

  • Somewhat related to my other post, I am not exactly sure how prophecies are supposed to work. Yes, I know that they are supposed to "relieve pressure" built in the time continuum but to me they sound like information traveling more than 6 hours into the past. Sounds like the centaur accurately prophesied events 10+ years into the future! The only reason why Dumbledore would take active role in trying to bring the prophecy to fruition by manipulating Lily is if he himself was the sender of the message or somehow knows that failing to act in this particular way will result in a worse outcome than the 'end of the world'. In short, I'd say this particular Chekhov gun still has plenty of unused ammo.

Comment author: gjm 27 August 2014 01:08:44AM *  3 points [-]

Many of these don't exactly count as Chekhov's guns, but they have this in common with your Chekhov's guns: They seem like substantial unresolved things and I will be disappointed if the end of HPMOR leaves a lot of them unresolved:

  • Prophecies about Harry and the end of the world (for some values of "end" and "world").
  • How magic works (e.g., why you have to say "Wingardium Leviosa" to make things float; resolving this may be more or less equivalent to resolving spell creation).
  • Harry's intention of defeating death, perhaps in some fashion that involves the Deathly Hallows.
  • The list of locations discussed by Harry and Quirrell, which may or may not correspond to Horcrux hiding places or something.
  • Harry's "power that the Dark Lord knows not"; probably not either Science or partial transfiguration, but unlikely to be "love" as in Rowling.
  • What's wrong (and how genuinely) with Quirrell.
  • The interaction between Harry's and Quirrell's magic (kinda the same as in Rowling? maybe, or maybe not).
  • Harry's vow to do away with Azkaban and the use of Dementors to guard human beings.
  • Harry's debt to Lucius Malfoy. (Or -- I forget -- did that get cancelled somehow when Hermione got killed?)
  • What, if anything, Harry was doing after Hermione's death; e.g., is he carrying her transfigured corpse around or something?
  • Harry's "father's rock" (just transfiguration practice? actually some powerful magical artefact in disguise? etc.)
  • What really happened in Godric's Hollow when Harry was a baby.
  • Exactly what Quirrell's plans really are. (On some plausible theories, closely related to what happened in Godric's Hollow.)
Comment author: Romashka 11 December 2014 12:58:28PM *  0 points [-]

And that curse Quirrell mentioned that requires a sword and a rope. I think it will have to do with Bloody baron and the Monk (House ghosts).

Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 08:04:27PM 2 points [-]

I'm not sure the missed glint in the Godric's Hollow graveyard was a Chekhov's gun. I took it as the final resting place of one or more of the Peverell brothers, which responded to Harry's declaration against death. In other words I think its relevance was fully explained in the context of that chapter, and wasn't left expecting any more from it.

Comment author: buural 15 August 2014 08:24:52AM 4 points [-]

Hypothesis:

  • The prophesied 'end of the world' will involve meddling with Time.

Some semi-random observations/conjectures supporting the hypothesis:

  • The 6-hour information transfer limit is tied to the Interdict of Merlin. A 6-hour timeframe seems rather arbitrary in terms of describing a purely natural constraint of the underlying physical reality. It makes perfect sense, on the other hand, as a human-designed complementary measure of enforcing the Interdict as otherwise wizards would be traveling back in time to learn from old masters before their deaths, thereby negating the Interdict.

  • The whole plot generally revolves around paradoxes and uses of Time. Atlantis is supposedly 'erased from Time' (not destroyed). Hogwarts castle's random changes have time patterns (certain years and days in the week). References to students getting lost and coming back as old men or going higher than the castle's highest level (implying shifting passageways transporting people into Hogwarts castles in some alternative times/realities?).

  • Repeated allusions to Harry destroying stars is unlikely to be referring to a literal physical annihilation of all visible stars. I would place a much higher probability on the possibility that the current time/reality in which Hermione is irrevocably dead will be destroyed as a result of Harry deciding to change the fact.

  • What spells are most likely to be declared so dangerous to warrant the Interdict? No magic (aside from Time travel), no matter how destructive, comes even close in my mind to justify Merlin sacrificing himself to impose this rather oppressive restriction that limits indirect information exchange of ALL wizards in ALL of time, present AND future!

  • The first time we hear Quirrelmort's inner monologue is when we learn that he is honestly afraid of what Harry will do. I cannot think realistically what Harry can do to threaten his 'modified' interstellar probe at present time unless he can prevent it being modified (horcruxed?) to start with, i.e. go back in time.

  • Time paradoxes are ruled out. Why? Because reality is somehow ensuring consistency? But then, how could Atlantis 'erase' itself from Time? I assign much higher probability that this restriction is designed as part of the Interdict again rather than a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Thoughts?

Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 07:42:58PM 1 point [-]

I thought "destroying stars" was pretty simple: Dyson spheres. That's not actual destruction per se, but from a Centaur's perspective...

Comment author: buural 26 August 2014 11:58:08PM 0 points [-]

While I agree that Dyson spheres are a possible interpretation, the wording of the prophecy doesn't make them a likely candidate:

HE IS HERE. THE ONE WHO WILL TEAR APART THE VERY STARS IN HEAVEN. HE IS HERE. HE IS THE END OF THE WORLD

From the vantage point of view of an observer on Earth, a Dyson sphere would likely appear to extinguish stars outside it (assuming we are talking about a version that is impermeable to light from either side). Tearing apart doesn't sound like a probable description. Note that the prophecy talks of the end of the world, which again can be better explained by the end of the timeline/reality hypothesis rather than a Dyson sphere

Comment author: [deleted] 27 August 2014 12:57:37AM 0 points [-]

Astroid mining? There's some room for interpretation here on the meaning of "star". Plus I wouldn't rule out stars themselves eventually being mined for resources, e.g. by triggering coronal mass ejections.

Comment author: 75th 18 August 2014 08:31:30AM *  2 points [-]

the current time/reality in which Hermione is irrevocably dead will be destroyed as a result of Harry deciding to change the fact.

Harry himself appears to be pretty firmly set against that:

"And while I hate to get all PHILOSOPHICAL," Harry desperately tried to lower his voice to something under a shriek, "has anyone thought about the IMPLICATIONS of going back six hours and doing something that changes time which would pretty much DELETE ALL THE PEOPLE AFFECTED and REPLACE THEM WITH DIFFERENT VERSIONS -"

So I wouldn't say never, but I think it would take something extraordinary, considerably more so even than Hermione's death, to drive him to that.


I cannot think realistically what Harry can do to threaten his 'modified' interstellar probe at present time unless he can prevent it being modified (horcruxed?) to start with, i.e. go back in time.

At the time Quirrell begins his freakout, he doesn't know what form it will take, either. He just heard that "HE IS THE END OF THE WORLD" and that's all he needs to know. He may get clued in a bit more later on, when he overhears Firenze talking to Harry. Clearly, Harry is going to acquire a massive amount of power he doesn't already have, but I don't see any particular reason to promote the option of super-duper-time-travel to the fore.

Comment author: buural 20 August 2014 05:09:30AM 0 points [-]

Harry himself appears to be pretty firmly set against that...

The quote by Harry that you provide comes from very early in the story, before he resolved to become the next "Dark Lord" (in the sense of someone willing to defy the tyranny of majority if necessary) and before he resolved to undo Hermione's death doing whatever it takes.

More generally, my sense is that HPMOR Harry is partial to utilitarian logic (recall his qualms related to the possibility of sentient grass). Even if his worldview hadn't evolved as much as it did since the beginning of the story, I would not rule out him going against his feelings expressed in the quote if he believed the net welfare gain to humanity warranted it.

On a slightly related note, I always found the Comed-Tea horribly overpowered. Not only does the soda drink look forward in time (anticipating choke-worthy events in advance) but also is powerful enough to affect the mind of the drinker to make him/her feel the urge to drink it. The programming/magic behind the drink's creation seems absurdly advanced for the end purpose used. Merlin's spell being able to affect all wizards of all time or the very existence of time travel - all these seem to narrow down significantly the set of possible physical realities as imagined by Eliezer, perhaps even his own timeless physics, but that's just pure speculation on my part as I am in no way an expert in physics.

Comment author: TylerJay 13 August 2014 05:25:05AM 3 points [-]

Not related to CH102, but I just realized that "Slytherin System" messages are a physical implementation of Tor. Entry node who knows only the sender and the middle node, middle node who knows only the entry and exit nodes, exit node who knows only the middle node and the receiver.

Comment author: gwern 19 August 2014 01:02:52AM 1 point [-]

Yep. I enjoyed seeing a mix net in MoR. Incidentally, can you see any weaknesses in the Slytherin System as described?

Comment author: pushcx 19 August 2014 03:26:16PM 2 points [-]

Sure: there's no indication of delivery, so you don't even know if one of the hops in your message opened all the envelopes, took all the money, read your private note, and trashed it.

Comment author: 75th 09 January 2015 10:35:48PM 1 point [-]

I think there's a bonus feature to having two hops in the middle. If the sender finds that the recipient never received the message, he immediately distrusts his first hop and perhaps publishes the knowledge. If the first hop wasn't the culprit, he either publishes the second hop's unreliability or takes horrible devious Slytheriny vengeance on them.

So, due to mutually assured destruction, neither hop wants to defect and risk losing a nice income source permanently.

Comment author: gwern 19 August 2014 05:13:18PM 1 point [-]

Yes, without public-key crypto or at least crypto of some sort, you easily lose any secrecy to any bad actors in the mix net. But the absence of dummy messages or very high traffic also means you don't necessarily get anonymity either: just observe everyone in the System.

Comment author: 75th 18 August 2014 08:36:51AM 0 points [-]

"Tor" stands for "The Onion Router", and I could have sworn that Harry explicitly thought of the Slytherin System as "onion routing" at one point but I can't seem to find it.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 08 August 2014 08:50:16PM 0 points [-]

There is speculation that the philosopher's stone is a device that makes transfiguration permanent.

We know that there is a prophesy that someone, probably Harry, will destroy the stars.

I'm not a physicist, but... is there any chance that Harry could transfigure some sort of exotic matter that could collapse the quantum vacuum or otherwise destroy stars without requiring an interstellar spaceship?

Comment author: shminux 08 August 2014 09:23:00PM 0 points [-]

We know that there is a prophesy that someone, probably Harry, will destroy the stars.

If Eliezer actually picked that route then it is likely to be something like a UFAI consuming the universe to build magic paperclips. I don't see it as likely, though.

I'm not a physicist, but... is there any chance that Harry could transfigure some sort of exotic matter that could collapse the quantum vacuum or otherwise destroy stars without requiring an interstellar spaceship?

An ex-physicist here. Well, certainly the usual relativistic QM predicts that there is no lowest energy level (and so, no vacuum), so you can keep extracting energy forever. Even in QFT it takes some effort to get rid of the negative energy states, and as a result you end up with infinite vacuum energy. So destroying vacuum certainly would be a lesser violation of physics than time-turners, which are basically ruled out by the classical general relativity.

That said, I expect Eliezer to have come up with something more mind-blowing than vacuum-blowing.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 08 August 2014 09:35:08PM 0 points [-]

If Eliezer actually picked that route then it is likely to be something like a UFAI consuming the universe to build magic paperclips. I don't see it as likely, though.

Apparently word of god is that there is going to be no AI. I think it likely that there will be a happy ending, but that 'destroying the stars' will resolve itself into a concrete threat. Somehow 'Epilogue: than over the next few billion years superintelligent Harry turned stars into computronium' seems a little unsatisfactory.

That said, I expect Eliezer to have come up with something more mind-blowing than vacuum-blowing.

I dunno, vacuum-blowing seems reasonably mind-blowing to me. Do you have any alternative theories?

Comment author: 75th 18 August 2014 08:43:56AM *  0 points [-]

Apparently word of god is that there is going to be no AI.

I was thinking about this recently, and I realized that maybe it should be kind of obvious why he doesn't usually do fiction about AI: because (he believes, at least, that) the first strong AI is either an instant win condition or instant failure condition for the entire universe, and neither immutable utopia nor irrecoverable catastrophe make for very interesting stories. So anything interesting or uncertain or suspenseful about AI has to be written about disguised as other topics, where things can go wrong but then realistically be set right.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 20 August 2014 05:00:04PM 0 points [-]

AI is not an instant-win condition, but it would be fairly quick. There could be drama with the AI trying to develop nanotech, (running up against physical speed constraints rather than mental) before some sort of disaster hits, although this does remove agency from the humans who would mostly be following the AI's commands.

I think AI can still be part of a story, provided it's kept towards the final chapter. Developing true self-improving superhuman AI is rather like throwing the ring into Mt Doom - all that remains it to crown the king, mourn the (non-recoverable) dead, and write that everyone lived happily ever after.

Apologies for the self-obsessed diversion, but this is on topic: I'm writing a story which involves not AI but recursively self-improving IA, and I'm beginning to think that this might have been a bad idea for this sort of reason. In my story the situation is somewhat improved by the presence of a good reason why multiple entities begin self-improvement at approximately the same time, which means that conflicts remain. I can't write superintelligent dialogue, but I've handwaved this as saying that most of the character's mental energy is going towards other activities, leaving their verbal IQ within normal human ranges. The remaining problem is that the other characters become rapidly sidelined.

Comment author: Velorien 05 August 2014 01:33:22PM 0 points [-]

Something I haven't heard discussed elsewhere:

Merlin created the Interdict because he believed, based on prophecy, that this would prevent the otherwise inevitable end of the world and its magic.

If resolved!Harry is "the end of the world", as per Trelawney's prophecy, then whatever he is going to do must therefore involve bypassing the Interdict of Merlin.

The only way we presently know to do that is Salazar's basilisk-transmitted lore, which is now probably only available via Quirrell (assuming he is Tom Riddle and Tom Riddle was the Heir of Slytherin who opened the Chamber of Secrets).

Hypothesis: Quirrell will teach Harry Salazar's ancient lore, which Harry will then use to "tear apart the very stars themselves" and, in some sense, end the world and its magic.

Comment author: DanArmak 01 September 2014 07:42:42PM 0 points [-]

The only way we presently know to do that is Salazar's basilisk-transmitted lore, which is now probably only available via Quirrell (assuming he is Tom Riddle and Tom Riddle was the Heir of Slytherin who opened the Chamber of Secrets).

Salazar lived after Merlin, so while he definitely knew very powerful magic, it wasn't pre-Interdict game-breaking powerful. If it had been, then he or one of his heirs would have broken the universe by now.

Hypothesis: Quirrell will teach Harry Salazar's ancient lore, which Harry will then use to "tear apart the very stars themselves" and, in some sense, end the world and its magic.

Quirrel is terrified of Harry destroying the stars; he will not teach him any magic which he imagines could be used towards that end. That may even be the reason he has, as he said, changed his mind about teaching Harry any magical secrets.

Comment author: 75th 09 January 2015 10:37:03PM 1 point [-]

That may even be the reason he has, as he said, changed his mind about teaching Harry any magical secrets.

Definitely this.

Comment author: 75th 18 August 2014 09:05:10AM *  1 point [-]

Merlin created the Interdict because he believed, based on prophecy, that this would prevent the otherwise inevitable end of the world and its magic.

He hoped it would, but he didn't live to ask the remaining seers if it actually worked.

If resolved!Harry is "the end of the world", as per Trelawney's prophecy, then whatever he is going to do must therefore involve bypassing the Interdict of Merlin.

This doesn't really make sense, or is irrelevant, or is sort of a tautology, or something. The Interdict of Merlin is not a magical universe-saving spell. If it were, as you sort of imply, then you would basically be saying "If Harry can destroy the universe, then it follows that he will not not be able to destroy the universe". But the Interdict is not that, nor does it limit what magic a person can use; it simply limits the transfer of the most powerful magics to only occur between two living minds. Merlin hoped that would be enough to save the universe because he counted on magical knowledge waning permanently.

The only way we presently know to do that is Salazar's basilisk-transmitted lore

Patently and obviously false. We've known since Chapter 77 that Nicolas Flamel has a whole bunch of knowledge he might someday share, and the whole point of Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres since Chapter 28 is that he can figure out magic that's long-lost or never-known. And the Interdict imposes no limitation on figuring out powerful magic on your own.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 02 August 2014 05:04:25AM 2 points [-]

Anyone else find the stuff about indifference to be rather deepish? Indifference has no power at all, it's the absence of power.

And now we learn that to cast Avada Kevada, you have to either want the person dead, or not care whether they live or die? So, I guess that means the only condition in which you can't cast is if you want the person to live, in which case you wouldn't want to cast it anyway.

Comment author: gjm 02 August 2014 09:17:51PM 0 points [-]

deepish

Typo for "derpish"? Reference to the notion of deepities? Something else? (I'm guessing the second of those.)

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 05 August 2014 07:20:59PM 0 points [-]

You are correct in thinking it is the latter.

Comment author: Velorien 02 August 2014 08:31:37AM 7 points [-]

Anyone else find the stuff about indifference to be rather deepish? Indifference has no power at all, it's the absence of power.

You're going to have to define "power" for that statement to be meaningful.

And now we learn that to cast Avada Kevada, you have to either want the person dead, or not care whether they live or die? So, I guess that means the only condition in which you can't cast is if you want the person to live, in which case you wouldn't want to cast it anyway.

I thought the point was that by default, a psychologically healthy human being assigns others' lives a value above zero, even strangers, and for Avada Kedavra you have to either overcome this with hatred (by assigning them a value below zero) or by indifference (by assigning them a value of zero). Both achieve the goal of expressing a preference for death (zero or below) over life (positive value), but the former requires an increasing amount of effort (because you're deliberately making yourself feel something) while the latter is "always on" and theferore doesn't.

I still don't see why repeat castings with hatred would require higher amounts of effort each time, but otherwise the concept is not incoherent.

Comment author: Philip_W 05 August 2014 10:08:22AM *  1 point [-]

I still don't see why repeat castings with hatred would require higher amounts of effort each time,

This is weird: In many cases hatred would peter out into indifference, rather than positive value, which ought to make AK easier. In fact, the idea that killing gets easier with time because of building indifference is a recognised trope. It's even weirder that the next few paragraphs are an author tract on how baseline humans let people die out of apathy all the time, so it's not like Yudkowski is unfamiliar with the ease with which people kill.

Comment author: 75th 18 August 2014 09:10:51AM *  0 points [-]

In many cases hatred would peter out into indifference

Perhaps, but this is not likely to happen in the middle of a battle where you're trying to kill each other. And even if you felt indifference, you would still have to think of trying to cast Avada Kedavra from your indifference, not from your hate, which is how you learned to cast AK in the first place and never questioned. You would have to force a new mindset of calm emptiness upon yourself, which would take practice. Even the worst Death Eaters are not likely to have taken an analytical approach to battle, realized the possibility, and then practiced killing people in their spare time with indifference to make sure it was reliable in the (other guy's) heat of the moment.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 30 July 2014 03:33:47PM *  0 points [-]

Just a silly idea: Is there a relationship between Philosopher Stone and Philosophical Zombie?

Perhaps the Stone can provide immortality in combination with Horcrux. Step 1: use Philosopher Stone to remove the victim's qualia, changing them into a Philosphical Zombie. Step 2: use Horcrux to copy yourself into the victim's body. Now your qualia will not mix with their, so the new person is definitely you.

Comment author: DanArmak 01 September 2014 07:40:02PM 2 points [-]

Dumbledore: Harry, you must not use the Philosopher's stone! It grants you immortality, but it destroys your soul, turning you into a philosophical zombie!

Harry: souls don't exist, you idiot! pushes button

Comment author: Velorien 30 July 2014 03:44:03PM 1 point [-]

It seems at odds with the references to an "elixir of life", which is supposed to provide the user with immortality without use of Dark rituals, and also does not connote deadly poison the way your idea does.

Comment author: 75th 29 July 2014 08:50:30PM *  3 points [-]

/u/solipsist, in another comment on this thread:

Do not try to obtain Sstone yoursself. I forbid.

This was said by Quirrell in Parseltongue. If you can only tell the truth in Parseltongue, then Quirrell was really forbidding Harry from obtaining the stone himself.

If Quirrell can't lie in Parseltongue (and not just Harry, since Harry's speaking as a standard Parselmouth but Quirrell is speaking as a sentient snake), and if that prohibition enforces the sincerity of imperative commands and not just declarative statements, then clearly what Quirrell is saying is that Harry should try to make his own Philosopher's Stone.

"It's not a secret." Hermione flipped the page, showing Harry the diagrams. "The instructions are right on the next page. It's just so difficult that only Nicholas Flamel's done it."


"Well, it can't work," Hermione said. She'd flown across the library to look up the only book on alchemy that wasn't in the Restricted Section. And then - she remembered the crushing letdown, all the sudden hope dissipating like mist. "Because all alchemical circles have to be drawn 'to the fineness of a child's hair', it isn't any finer for some alchemies than others. And wizards have Omnioculars, and I haven't heard of any spells where you use Omnioculars to magnify things and do them exactly.

So the first thing Hermione mentions as a limitation of doing alchemy is the insane precision of the circle you have to draw. But what if there were already an acceptable, permanent alchemy setup just lying around somewhere where Harry could get to it?

The three of them stood within the Headmaster's private Transfiguration workroom, where the shining phoenix of Dumbledore's Patronus had told her to bring Harry, moments after her own Patronus had reached him. Light shone down through the skylights and illuminated the great seven-pointed alchemical diagram drawn in the center of the circular room, showing it to be a little dusty, which saddened Minerva. Transfiguration research was one of Dumbledore's great enjoyments, and she'd known how pressed for time he'd been lately, but not that he was this pressed.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 30 July 2014 09:12:30AM 3 points [-]

So the first thing Hermione mentions as a limitation of doing alchemy is the insane precision of the circle you have to draw.

I guess I know what Harry told Fred/George to buy him in Chapter 98. The greatest alchemist tool ever! :D

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 09:36:46PM 3 points [-]

On the other hand,

"Because all alchemical circles have to be drawn 'to the fineness of a child's hair', it isn't any finer for some alchemies than others.

strongly implies that different alchemical procedures require different circles. What are the odds that Dumbledore just happens to have the right circle for philosopher's stone creation ready, given that he has no desire for immortality, no special need for gold, and access to an existing philosopher's stone anyway?

Comment author: 75th 29 July 2014 10:48:24PM *  0 points [-]

We definitely don't know enough specifics about HPMoR-alchemy to come to any firm conclusions.

Does the "alchemical circle" that has to be so precise refer to just the containing circle itself, or to all the runes inside it, too? If the former, then the circle could be a permanent part of the room, while the runes are drawn (the earlier passage does say the Transfiguration studio's diagram was "drawn") slightly more crudely in some way that's erasable. If the latter, then,

Are there different runes for different alchemies, or is it always the same "board" that you perform different processes on top of? If the latter, then the whole room could be ready to go; if the former, then yeah, Harry may be out of luck.

I did some Googling about the history of alchemy, and the diagram I saw associated with the Philosopher's Stone in several places was a circle-inscribed-in-a-square-inscribed-in-a-triangle-inscribed-in-the-Circle. If Eliezer is consistent with that, then Harry's probably going to have to draw at least the runes on his own.

I do think that it makes more sense literarily for Harry to have to go through the trapped third-floor corridor to the room with the "magic mirror" rather than skipping it altogether. But as others have pointed out, if it is the Mirror of Erised and Dumbledore's scheme is the same as in canon, HPMoR-Harry probably won't qualify to receive the Stone, since he totally does want to use it, and (I hope) can't somehow make himself not want to use it in a way that satisfies Dumbledore's spell.

So maybe he'll get to the mirror, find himself flummoxed, and then proceed to go make one. I don't know.

Comment author: Romashka 11 December 2014 12:57:33PM 1 point [-]

Or maybe he goes to the room, gets the Mirror, and looking into the Mirror to correct himself, draws the circle just right.

(Since he does want to be able to make a Philosopher's stone, not just to get one - he wants 'mass-produced immortality'. And he had suggeted to Hermione that magical objects could be used to draw objects more precisely (only they were discussing a different object). And he had already used a supposedly-significant stone in battle in a least-magic-demanding way. And we haven't seen even in Rowling's world that the Mirror can only show 'real-sized things', so it can potentially magnify them.)

Comment author: Will_Newsome 29 July 2014 01:00:43AM 11 points [-]

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.

Oh, I guess I can post this then: V jnf ng n jrqqvat cnegl guvat n srj lrnef onpx jurer Ryvrmre pbasvezrq gung lbh pna'g yvr va Cnefrygbathr; gur engvbanyr tvira jnf gung Fnynmne jvfurq gb sbfgre pbbeqvangvba orgjrra uvf urvef. V'z abg 100% fher V'z erzrzorevat pbeerpgyl ohg V'z cerggl fher.

Comment author: Gvaerg 01 August 2014 01:58:48PM *  0 points [-]

I'm wondering what Salazar would make of Bane's Rule of Two

Comment author: Velorien 01 August 2014 02:07:30PM 0 points [-]

Kindly refrain from using rot13 for comments that do not fit the rule given in Will's comment above. The rule is there for a reason, and you are reducing its reliability as a tool for avoiding spoilers.

Comment author: Gvaerg 01 August 2014 02:17:02PM 0 points [-]

Okay, fixed. IMHO it would make more sense to rot13 hereditarily.

Comment author: Velorien 01 August 2014 02:24:02PM 1 point [-]

Sometimes, certainly. I'm not sure it would work well as a general policy. People may rot13 things incorrectly, or may rot13 a post only some of which constitutes a spoiler. If that gets passed along to all further comments, it'll cut everyone who avoids spoilers out of the discussion. Your comment, for example, is interesting, and led me to look up Bane's Rule of Two, but I would not have done so if I hadn't suspected that yours was an incorrect rot13 to begin with.

Comment author: William_Quixote 28 July 2014 07:20:51PM *  6 points [-]

We learn a number of very interesting things in this chapter. I'll focus on one area

-Like with horcrux sspell, abssurdity [of the stone] hidess true ssecret. -True Sstone iss not what that legend ssayss. -True power iss not what sstoriess claim. -Sstone iss powerful healing device in truth.

So it's confirmed it exists and that it isn't what people think and that it's power / mechanism isn't what people think.

This is important because thinking back to Harry's early experiments with Hermione, he discovered that if you don't know what a spell does or have been told something completely in the wrong space the spell doesn't work at all. If you know generally what it does, it still works as long as you pronounce it correctly. (The later is also confirmed by the 'for enemies' spell).

In the library Hermione told Harry that the spell is published but no one has been able to actually perform it (nominally due to difficulty). If they all think it does something other than what it actually does, that explains it and is consistent with the book's theory of magic.

Also worth noting, Hermione was killed shortly after she began looking into the stone in earnest.

-Sstone's ssuppossed maker wass not one who made it. -One who holdss it now, wass not born to name now ussed. -One who holdss Sstone iss repossitory of much lore. -Taught sschoolmasster many ssecretss.

This part also seems very important. We get a new "major player". This player is powerful enough that QQ couldn't just take the stone and also powerful enough to have taught Dumbeldore many things (and Dumbeldore is thought to be the most powerful wizard in centuries). So here is a behind the scenes power on par or stronger than either major player in the last war.

Nick Flamel seems to just be the most recent alias for this other player, who has probably been around for a long time. For my money, I predict NF is really Baba Yaga ("the undying"). She's been named dropped too often to not make an appearance, and her being NF allows her to have been around all along instead of being an unsatisfying last chapter walk on.

Comment author: Hyphen-ated 29 July 2014 06:31:07AM *  1 point [-]

-One who holdss it now, wass not born to name now ussed. -One who holdss Sstone iss repossitory of much lore. -Taught sschoolmasster many ssecretss.

I've been under the impression through the whole story that Harry's father's rock is the philosopher's stone. Is Quirrel just referring to Harry here?

The Harry we know wasn't "born to the name now used", or really born at all, because his current self comes from a merger of the original Harry and Voldemort.

Harry is the repository of much lore about science.

Harry has taught Dumbledore many "secrets" about muggle science and rationality. (hasn't he? I can't remember any specifics because I haven't done a reread in a long time)

Comment author: William_Quixote 29 July 2014 04:06:36PM 1 point [-]

Hmm I hadn't thought the rock was the stone. That would be a great twist, but I doubt it because Dumbeldore said it was not magical to his knowledge when Harry asked him.

Also even if it is the stone, I don't think QQ knows this.

Comment author: hairyfigment 29 July 2014 04:23:03PM 0 points [-]

Also, we have what seems like a sufficient explanation for the rock - assuming Albus knew that the Defense Professor mentioned trolls while he was subtly encouraging Harry to learn the Killing Curse.

Comment author: ChristianKl 29 July 2014 12:45:59PM 1 point [-]

I've been under the impression through the whole story that Harry's father's rock is the philosopher's stone. Is Quirrel just referring to Harry here?

No. It would be stupid for Dumbledore to hand out the philosopher's stone that way. It doesn't make it protected.

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 09:27:08AM 2 points [-]

Even assuming that all this is accurate, why would Quirrell give Harry a third-person description of Harry, framed as if he was describing a third party?

Apart from the standalone ridiculousness of such behaviour, if Quirrell believed that Harry already had the stone, and knew that Harry was willing to use the stone for his benefit, then this sort of obfuscation would be the last thing he'd do.

Comment author: BloodyShrimp 29 July 2014 03:40:01PM 1 point [-]

Unless Quirrell isn't interested in the stone primarily here, but in tricking Harry into doing something else trying to get the stone.

Comment author: Velorien 28 July 2014 07:56:21PM 5 points [-]

In the library Hermione told Harry that the spell is published but no one has been able to actually perform it (nominally due to difficulty). If they all think it does something other than what it actually does, that explains it and is consistent with the book's theory of magic.

This depends very much on how people conceptualise the philosopher's stone. If they go "by following these instructions, I will create a stone that produces the elixir of life and is also capable of permanently transmuting base metal into gold", and the philosopher's stone does not in fact do these things, then yes, they will fail.

On the other hand, if the wizard in question is aware that they have no idea how such an artefact is supposed to produce the elixir of life (or indeed what the elixir of life is beyond its expected function), or how it's supposed to transmute things, then their thought will surely be more like "by following these instructions, I will create an artefact that will deliver great benefits unto me, its possessor". Which ought to be sufficient to succeed if "for enemies" is.

If so, surely at least one of the many wizards to attempt the philosopher's stone ritual(?) must have been contemplating a sufficiently broad possibility space to succeed. And yet this does not appear to have been the case.

For further evidence, consider how frequently people learn and cast the Patronus Charm despite the fact that they are completely ignorant of how it really works.

Comment author: William_Quixote 28 July 2014 11:18:20PM 2 points [-]

Although people are ignorant of why it works, people casting the patronus charm know exactly what it does. It makes a silver colored animal that makes fear go away and can chase dementors.

As to conceptualization, you may well be right that it could be done without understanding the mechanism but with correct conceptualization. But, I bet most wizards don't have the right conceptualization. And worse, I bet most wizards investigating the philosophers stone have a Theory. And their theory is probably directly wrong which blocks them from being able to do it.

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 09:33:03AM 0 points [-]

And worse, I bet most wizards investigating the philosophers stone have a Theory. And their theory is probably directly wrong which blocks them from being able to do it.

This does sound very likely. Although it's worth noting that there are at least a few powerful wizards who are, if not rational, at least capable of processing evidence without leaping to conclusions - we hear them described at the conclusion of Hermione's trial.

Comment author: cousin_it 28 July 2014 02:18:04PM *  10 points [-]

Any ideas on what the Philosopher's Stone does? My favorite idea so far, seen in the fanfiction.net reviews, is that it's a device for making transfiguration permanent. That would account for both gold and healing powers.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 07:22:12PM -2 points [-]

However that wouldn't wrap up the story nicely in a single story arc.

It is a wish device. Probably a direct interface to the Source of Magic (itself an UFAI or Nanny AGI created by the Atlantian civilization and which underwent hard takeoff), bypassing the various operating systems, isolation layers, and programs that have been put in place on top of the Source of Magic over the years, e.g. the interdict of Merlin and whatever macro-extensible program runs charms & potions. The philosopher's stone directly links one's mind to the Source of Magic, thereby making whatever physically possible thing you think of come true. Kinda like the device in the book / movie Sphere, for example. It is said to create eternal youth and gold because that is what the creater of the stone wanted.

Harry aquires the stone, and uses it to re-write the rules governing the Source of Magic, becoming god in a single step and sets about "optimizing the world."

Comment author: cousin_it 26 August 2014 07:59:56PM 0 points [-]

I think/hope Eliezer shares my distaste for such overpowered plot devices.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 08:13:19PM *  0 points [-]

Well this isn't a story for the sake of being a story. It's meant to educate, not just entertain. Sometimes the moral is: invent the spells Becomus Godus and Fixus Everthingus and use them. Keeping in mind why Eliezer is spending his presumably valuable time writing Harry Potter fanfiction, it seems inevitable to me that some sort of overpowered ending is required. Eliezer's quest is to reshape the world in a positive way through friendly AGI. Harry's goal is the same (substituting magic = AGI).

If the above theory is correct, we're in for a story arc about outcome pumps, wish granting machines, extrapolated morality, and hard takeoffs. Because the point of this is to make readers want (a) to be more rational, and then (b) to help MIRI on its FAI quest, no?

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 July 2014 01:59:27PM 2 points [-]

The burning sensation was back in Harry's throat. "No continuity of -" there wasn't a snake word for consciousness "- sself, you would go on thinking after making the horcrux, then sself with new memoriess diess and iss not resstored -"

That's an interesting reflection of our recent discussion about the value of the term consciousness (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ki1/confused_as_to_usefulness_of_consciousness_as_a/) and how some languages probably don't have it.

Comment author: Sophronius 01 August 2014 02:27:59PM *  0 points [-]

Yea, I was quite surprised to find that Quirrell believes in continuity of consciousness as being a fundamental problem, since it really is just an illusion to begin with (though you could argue the illusion itself is worthwhile). Surely you could just kill yourself the moment your horcrux does its job if you're worried about your other self living on? But maybe he doesn't know that scientifically there's no such thing as identity. Or maybe he's lying. Personally, I would be MUCH more concerned about the fact that the horcrux implants memories, but does not replace personality. But for some reason Quirrel does not mention that as the obvious drawback.

(I was also surprised that Eliezer seems to buy in the obviously false notion that "the opposite of love is indifference")

Comment author: DanArmak 01 September 2014 07:56:32PM 0 points [-]

Surely you could just kill yourself the moment your horcrux does its job if you're worried about your other self living on?

What would be the point? The goal of the horcrux isn't to transfer into another body you like better than your current one, it's to be a backup against accidentally dying.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 07:46:15PM 0 points [-]

It's not at all obvious that continuity of consciousness is an illusion. If you have a real proof of that I'd love to hear it.

Comment author: drethelin 03 August 2014 07:25:21PM 0 points [-]

The continuity of consciousness is one thing but the horcrux doesn't even give continuity of KNOWLEDGE thanks to merlin

Comment author: Sophronius 03 August 2014 08:08:20PM *  0 points [-]

That's not an issue when it comes to acquiring immortality though. I mean, if you lost all knowledge of algebra, would you say that means you "died"?

Comment author: drethelin 03 August 2014 08:27:25PM 1 point [-]

Did you not read that section at all? If you lose all knowledge of powerful spellcasting, a) you lose your ability to continue to be immortal after this iteration, b) you lose your ability to defend yourself against enemies who haven't lost their ability to cast interdicted spells. The second one is really important when the process for immortality is one that inherently makes a lot of enemies! He specifically mentioned that dark wizards that tried use that technique to come back were easily defeated afterward.

Comment author: gwern 05 August 2014 04:51:46PM *  2 points [-]

Could that explain why Hat&Cloak seems to be a clever manipulator who works in utmost secrecy? (They really are weak, and survive only by hiding in the shadows.) We never see them indicated as using anything more complex than an Obliviate or disguise spell, AFAIK, which any reasonably competent adult wizard would be able to pull off.

Comment author: hairyfigment 05 August 2014 04:39:29PM -1 points [-]

This seems a big part of why I don't think Baba Yaga is still alive. The best in-story reason I can think of to consider the theory at all lies in the idea that (if Horcruxes are easier to make than I thought) some Dark figure of legend should still be alive. This argument seems weak if the spell doesn't give you much advantage. Also, Quirrell's claim here fits what we know about the Interdict. (I guess the question is whether the Horcrux spell falls under the Interdict!)

Comment author: Velorien 05 August 2014 05:02:45PM 1 point [-]

(I guess the question is whether the Horcrux spell falls under the Interdict!)

Chapter 39:

Voldemort stole the book from which he gleaned his secret; it was not there when I went to look for it.

Comment author: hairyfigment 05 August 2014 05:46:20PM -1 points [-]

Yes, but Dumbledore probably can't create an Horcrux. The Defense Professor claims the known description is wrong, which could make the theft a piece of misdirection. This is another possible way around the Interdict; publish a fake version of the spell which hints at the truth.

Comment author: Sophronius 05 August 2014 10:26:36AM 2 points [-]

That's irrelevant when you're considering whether or not to use the horcrux at all and the alternative is being dead.

Comment author: drethelin 05 August 2014 06:25:05PM 1 point [-]

If you're on your deathbed, sure. But Horcruxing is not costless. If you have a significant projected lifespan left, and you want ACTUAL immortality, your odds are probably better NOT doing a risky dark ritual that also encourages people to come and kill you.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 02 August 2014 11:31:20PM *  2 points [-]

the obviously false notion that "the opposite of love is indifference"

Perhaps the word "opposite" is not the best one, but I think it's about this: in some metric, loving people and hating people is closer to each other than either of them is to the paperclip maximizer's attitude towards humans. In HPMOR universe, a magical paperclip maximizer could shoot AK like a machine gun. Instead of replacing one emotion with another emotion, it's replacing one emotion with an absence of an emotion.

Instinctively, people sometimes prefer to be hated than to be ignored. For example, children trying to draw attention to themselves by behaving badly. There is some "recognition" in hate, that indifference lacks.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 August 2014 04:05:57PM 0 points [-]

Instinctively, people sometimes prefer to be hated than to be ignored. ... There is some "recognition" in hate, that indifference lacks.

Relevant.

Comment author: Velorien 03 August 2014 04:12:52PM *  1 point [-]

Please warn when you are linking to a post with an unmarked major spoiler for another novel (or two).

Comment author: ChristianKl 01 August 2014 02:50:31PM 3 points [-]

But maybe he doesn't know that scientifically there's no such thing as identity.

What do you mean with the term "scientifically" in that sentence? If I put identity into Google Scholar I'm fairly sure I fill find a bunch of papers in respectable scientific journals that use the term.

(I was also surprised that Eliezer seems to buy in the obviously false notion that "the opposite of love is indifference")

"Obviously" is a fairly strong word. It makes some sense to label the negation of any emotion a emotionless state. Unfriendly AI doesn't hate humans but is indifferent.

Comment author: Sophronius 01 August 2014 03:19:05PM 1 point [-]

What do you mean with the term "scientifically" in that sentence? If I put identity into Google Scholar I'm fairly sure I fill find a bunch of papers in respectable scientific journals that use the term.

I mean that if you have two carbon atoms floating around in the universe, and the next instance you swap their locations but keep everything else the same, there is no scientific way in which you could say that anything has changed.

Combine this with humans being just a collection of atoms, and you have no meaningful way to say that an identical copy of you is "not really you". Also, 'continuity of consciousness' is just a specific sensation that this specific clump of atoms has at each point in time, except for all the times when it does not exist because the clump is 'sleeping'. So Quirrel's objection seems to have no merit (could be I'm missing something though).

"Obviously" is a fairly strong word. It makes some sense to label the negation of any emotion a emotionless state. Unfriendly AI doesn't hate humans but is indifferent.

Yes, there is an insight to be had there, I will acknowledge that much.

However, to say that the opposite of a friendly AI is a paper clip maximiser is stupid. The opposite of an AI which wants to help you is very obviously an AI which wants to hurt you. Which is why the whole "AK version 2 riddle" just doesn't work. The Patronus goes from "not thinking about death" (version 1) to "Valuing life over death" (version 2). The killing curse goes from "valuing death over life" (version 1) to "not caring about life" (version 2). You can visualise the whole thing as a line measuring just the one integer, namely "life-death preference":

Value death over life (-1) ---- don't think about it either way (0) ----- Value life over death (+1)

The patronus gets a boost by moving from 0 to +1. The killing curse gets a boost by moving from -1 to 0. That makes no sense. Why would the killing curse, which is powered by the exact opposite of the patronus, receive a boost in power by moving in the same direct as the Patronus which values life over death?

Only fake wisdom can get ridiculous results like this.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 07:58:25PM 0 points [-]

Yes you are missing a few things.

1) Saying you can't tell after the fact whether something occured is not the same as saying it never occured. The fact that we can't experimentally determine if two carbon atoms have distinct identity is not, repeat not the same as saying that they don't have separate identity. Maybe they do. You just can't tell.

2) That has nothing to do with continuity of consciousness. Assume the existence of a perfect matter replicator. What do you expect to happen when you make a copy of yourself? Do you expect to suddenly find yourself inside of the copy? Let's say that regardless of what you expect at that point, you end up in your same body as before, the old one not the new one. What do you expect to experience then, if you killed yourself? This has nothing, nothing to do with statements about quantum identity and equivalence of configuration spaces. It is about separating the concept of a representation of me, from an instance of that representation which is me. I expect to experience only what the instance of the representation which is currently typing this words will experience as it evolves into the future. If an exact copy of me was made at any time, that'd be pretty awesome. It'd be like having a truly identical twin. But it wouldn't me me, and if this instance died, I wouldn't expect to live on experiencing what the copy of me experiences.

3) Sleeping is a total non-sequiter. Do you expect that your brain is 100% shut off and disarticulated into individual neurons when you are in a sleeping state? No? That's right -- just because you don't have memories, doesn't mean you didn't exist while sleep. You just didn't form memories at the time.

Comment author: Sophronius 30 August 2014 10:09:26AM 1 point [-]

1) As far as I understand it, atoms don't have a specific 'location', there are only probabilities for where that atom might be at any given time. Given that it is silly to speak of individual atoms. Even if I misunderstood that part, it is still the case that two entities which have no discernible difference in principle are the same, as a matter of simple logic.

2) Asking "which body do you wake up in" is a wrong question. It is meaningless because there is no testable difference depending on your answer, it is not falsifiable even in principle. The simple fact is that if you copy Sophronius, you then have 2 Sophronius waking up later, each experiencing the sensation of being the original. Asking whose sensation is "real" is meaningless.

3) It is not a non-sequitur. Sleep interrupts your continuity of self. Therefore, if your existence depends on uninterrupted continuity of self, sleep would mean you die every night.

I notice that you keep using concepts like "you", "I" and "self" in your defence of a unique identity. I suggest you try removing those concepts or any other that presupposes unique identity. If you cannot do that then you are simply begging the question.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 09:21:06PM 1 point [-]

1) Saying you can't tell after the fact whether something occured is not the same as saying it never occured. The fact that we can't experimentally determine if two carbon atoms have distinct identity is not, repeat not the same as saying that they don't have separate identity. Maybe they do. You just can't tell.

Well...

Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 11:17:14PM *  0 points [-]

The linked article by Elizer Yudkowsky is straight up wrong for the following reasons:

(1) Eliezer's understanding of the physics here is bunk. I'm actually a trained physist. He is not. But bonus points to you if you reject this argument because you shouldn't accept my authority any more than you should accept his. I assume you read Griffiths' Quantum Mechanics or a similar introductory book and came to your own conclusions?

(2) Specifically the experimental result Eliezer quotes has to do with how we calculate probabilities for quantum mechanical events. There are an infinitely many ways one could calculate probabilities -- math describes the universe, it doesn't constrain it. But if you do so naively, you end up with one answer if you treat "P1 at L1, P2 at L2" as a different state than "P1 at L2, P2 at L1" than if you treat them as the same state. Experimental results show that the latter probabilities are correct. One interpretation is that P1 and P2 are the same particle, so the state is "P at L1, P at L2". That's one interpretation. Another perfectly valid interpretation is that "Particle of type <P> at L1, Particle of type <P> at L2" is the actual state -- that is to say that the particles keep their identity but identity doesn't factor into the probabalistic calculus. That's why the term used by phsyisits is distinguishable rather than identity. These particles are indistinguishable, but that does not mean they are identical. That would be an unwaranted inference.

(3) All of that is a moot point, because it doesn't match up at all with what we are talking about: the continuity of self as it relates to human minds. Calculating probabilities about particles in boxes tells us nothing about whether I would expect to wake up in a computer after a destructive upload, or how that relates to a personal desire to cheat death. I don't care about the particles making up my mind: I care about sustaining the never stopping information processing system which gives rise to my subjective experiance. It does not obviously follow that if my mind state were perfectly saved before I was shot in the head, and then at some distant point in the future a brain configured exactly like mine was created, that I would subjectively experience living on in the future. Not anymore than it makes sense to say that my recently deceased aunt lives on in my mother, her identical twin.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 11:46:39PM *  0 points [-]

I assume you read Griffiths' Quantum Mechanics or a similar introductory book and came to your own conclusions?

FWIW, I have a master's degree in physics and I'm working to get a PhD (though in a subfield not closely related to the basics of QM; I'd trust say Scott Aaronson over myself even though he's not a physicist).

Another perfectly valid interpretation is that "Particle of type <P> at L1, Particle of type <P> at L2" is the actual state -- that is to say that the particles keep their identity but identity doesn't factor into the probabalistic calculus.

What do you mean by identity?

Comment author: [deleted] 27 August 2014 04:37:40PM *  0 points [-]

FWIW, I have a master's degree in physics and I'm working to get a PhD.

Awesome. Please forgive my undeserved snark.

What do you mean by identity?

Honestly I'm not sure. I only envoke the concept of identity in response to nonsense arguments appearing on LessWrong. Normally when I say 'identity' i mean the concept of 'self' which is the whatever-it-is which experiences my perceptions, thoughts, inner monologues, etc, or whatever it is that gives rise to the experience of me. How this relates to distinguishability of particles in quantum mechanics, I don't know.. which is kinda the point. When calculating probabilities, you treat two states as the same if they are indistinguishable ... how this gets warped into explaining what I'd expect to experience while undergoing a destructive upload is beyond me.

Comment author: hairyfigment 05 August 2014 05:26:12PM -1 points [-]

Also, 'continuity of consciousness' is just a specific sensation that this specific clump of atoms has at each point in time

Or not. Memories are genuinely lost, if someone makes a Horcrux and then dies some years later. Moreover, according to the Defense Professor in snake form, the maker's personality could also change due to influence from the (two) victim(s). The result need not act like the maker at time of casting would act if placed in a new environment.

See also major's point.

Comment author: Nornagest 01 August 2014 10:39:10PM *  3 points [-]

The patronus gets a boost by moving from 0 to +1. The killing curse gets a boost by moving from -1 to 0. That makes no sense. Why would the killing curse, which is powered by the exact opposite of the patronus, receive a boost in power by moving in the same direct as the Patronus which values life over death?

I parsed it as follows: the Killing Curse isn't powered by death in the same way that the Patronus draws power from life, but it does require the caster not to value the life of an opponent. Hatred enables this, but it's limited: it has to be intense, sustained hatred, and probably only hatred of a certain kind, since it takes some doing for neurologically typical humans to hate someone enough to literally want them dead. Indifference to life works just as well and lacks the limitations, but that's probably an option generally available only to, shall we say, a certain unusual personality type.

Ideology might interact with this in interesting ways, though. I don't know whether Death Eaters would count as being motivated by hate or indifference by the standards of the spell; my model of J.K. Rowling says "hate", while my model of Eliezer says "indifference".

Comment author: Sophronius 03 August 2014 05:44:58AM 1 point [-]

Yes, that ideology is precisely what bothers me. Eliezer has a bone to pick with death so he declares death to be the ultimate enemy. Dementors now represent death instead of depression, patronus now uses life magic, and a spell that is based on hate is now based on emptiness. It's all twisted to make it fit the theme, and it feels forced. Especially when there's a riddle and the answer is 'Eliezer's password'.

Comment author: hairyfigment 05 August 2014 04:54:28PM -2 points [-]

I don't know if MoR influenced the movies, but Deathly Hallows 1 or 2 showed an image of Death looking like the movie's image of Dementors. It seems to me like a natural inference.

Comment author: Velorien 05 August 2014 05:08:08PM 1 point [-]

Isn't that because the only static element of a dementor's appearance is its black, concealing cloak, and that overlaps neatly with the Grim Reaper portrayal of death?

Comment author: hairyfigment 05 August 2014 05:49:19PM -1 points [-]

You say that like Rowling had no choice but to use this well-known image for Dementors. Also, they're supposed to look somewhat like corpses underneath.

Comment author: Velorien 05 August 2014 06:14:01PM 0 points [-]

I increasingly feel like I've lost track of what you're trying to argue here. Would you mind recapitulating it for me?

Comment author: major 01 August 2014 10:28:46PM 2 points [-]

"don't think about it either way" does not necessarily mean indifference, it means reverting to default behaviour.

Humans are (mostly) pro-social animals with empathy and would not crush another human who just happens to be in their way - in that they differ from a falling rock. In fact, that's the point of hate, it overrides the built-in safeguards to allow for harmful action. According to this view, to genuinely not give a damn about someone's life is a step further. Obviously.

The thing about built-in default behaviour given by evolution is that it will not trigger in some cases.

Rationality and the English Language

"Unreliable elements were subjected to an alternative justice process"—subjected by who? What does an "alternative justice process" do? With enough static noun phrases, you can keep anything unpleasant from actually happening.

or HPMoR Ch.48

Your brain imagines a single bird struggling in an oil pond, and that image creates some amount of emotion that determines your willingness to pay. But no one can visualize even two thousand of anything, so the quantity just gets thrown straight out the window.

or HPMoR Ch.87

Because the way people are built, Hermione, the way people are built to feel inside [...] is that they hurt when they see their friends hurting. Someone inside their circle of concern, a member of their own tribe. That feeling has an off-switch, an off-switch labeled 'enemy' or 'foreigner' or sometimes just 'stranger'. That's how people are, if they don't learn otherwise.

My point with that is, it's completely in line with what Eliezer usually talks about, so you know it's a perspective he holds, not just rationalization.

For completeness' sake,

Not like certain people living in certain countries, who were, it was said, as human as anyone else; who were said to be sapient beings, worth more than any mere unicorn. But who nonetheless wouldn't be allowed to live in Muggle Britain. On that score, at least, no Muggle had the right to look a wizard in the eye. Magical Britain might discriminate against Muggleborns, but at least it allowed them inside so they could be spat upon in person.

still feels off. Oh, wait, I know! Maybe Harry is being Stupid here. Or Eliezer is being a Bad Writer. Again.

Comment author: Velorien 01 August 2014 02:35:27PM 1 point [-]

(I was also surprised that Eliezer seems to buy in the obviously false notion that "the opposite of love is indifference")

Insofar as it is at all meaningful to consider feelings to have opposites, what would you present as the correct alternative?

Comment author: Sophronius 01 August 2014 02:59:51PM *  0 points [-]

It is a wrong question, because reality is never that simple and clear cut and no rationalist should expect it to be. And as with all wrong questions, the thing you should do to resolve the confusion is to take a step back and ask yourself what is actually happening in factual terms:

A more accurate way to describe emotion, much like personality, is in terms of multiple dimensions. One dimension is intensity of emotion. Another dimension is the type of experience it offers. Love and hate both have strong intensity and in that sense they are similar, but they are totally opposite in the way they make you feel. They are also totally opposite in terms of the effect it has on your preferences: Thinking well vs. thinking poorly of someone (ignoring the fact that there are multiple types of hate and love, and the 9999 other added complexities).

Ordinary people notice that hate and love are totally the opposite in several meaningful ways, and say as much. Then along comes a contrarian who wants to show how clever he is, and he picks up on the one way that love and hate are similar and which can make them go well together: The intensity of emotion towards someone or something. And so the contrarian states that really love and hate are the same and indifference is the opposite of both (somehow), which can cause people who aren't any good at mapping complex subjects along multiple axi in their head to throw out their useful heuristic and award status to the contrarian for his fake wisdom.

I'm a bit disappointed that Eliezer fell for the number one danger of rationalists everywhere: Too much eagerness to throw out common sense in favour of cleverness.

(Eliezer if you are reading this: You are awesome and HPMOR is awesome. Please keep writing it and don't get discouraged by this criticism)

Comment author: Velorien 01 August 2014 03:53:43PM 3 points [-]

I'm surprised how strongly you're reacting to this, given that you seem to be aware that the whole "emotions having opposites" system is really just a word game anyway.

Why is it important that you prioritise the "effect on preferences" axis and Eliezer prioritises the "intensity" axis, except insofar as it is a bit embarrassing to see an intelligent person presenting one of these as wisdom? Perhaps Eliezer simply considers apathy to be a more dangerous affliction than hatred, and is thus trying to shift his readers' priorities accordingly. Insofar as there are far more people in the world moved to inaction through apathy than there are people moved to wrong action through hatred, perhaps there's something to that.

Comment author: Sophronius 01 August 2014 04:01:12PM *  1 point [-]

Hm, I didn't think I was reacting that strongly... If I was, it's probably because I am frustrated in general by people's inability to just take a step back and look at an issue for what it actually is, instead of superimposing their own favourite views on top of reality. I remember I recently got frustrated by some of the most rational people I know claiming that sun burn was caused by literal heat from the sun instead of UV light. Once they formed the hypothesis, they could only look at the issue through the 'eyes' of that view. And I see the same mistake made on Less Wrong all the time. I guess it's just frustrating to see EY do the same thing. I don't get why everyone, even practising rationalists, find this most elementary skill so hard to master.

Comment author: Lumifer 01 August 2014 04:28:00PM 1 point [-]

people's inability to just take a step back and look at an issue for what it actually is, instead of superimposing their own favourite views on top of reality.

I think that people who fully possess such a skill are usually described as "have achieved enlightenment" and, um, are rare :-) The skill doesn't look "elementary" to me.

Comment author: Sophronius 01 August 2014 04:49:07PM *  1 point [-]

Heheh, fair point. I guess a better way of putting it is that people fail to even bother to try this in the first place, or heck even acknowledge that this is important to begin with.

I cannot count the number of times I see someone try to answer a question by coming up with an explanation and then defending it, and utterly failing to graps that that's not how you answer a question. (In fact, I may be misremembering but I think you do this a lot, Lumifer.)

Comment author: Lumifer 01 August 2014 05:13:52PM *  0 points [-]

I see someone try to answer a question by coming up with an explanation and then defending it

The appropriateness of that probably depends on what kind of question it is...

I think my hackles got raised by the claim that your perception is "what it actually is" -- and that's a remarkably strong claim. It probably works better phrased like something along the lines of "trying to take your ego and preconceived notions out of the picture".

but I think you do this a lot

Any links to egregious examples? :-)

Comment author: Sophronius 01 August 2014 06:54:35PM *  1 point [-]

The appropriateness of that probably depends on what kind of question it is...

I guess it is slightly more acceptable if it's a binary question. But even so it's terrible epistimology, since you are giving undue attention to a hypothesis just because it's the first one you came up with.

An equally awful method of doing things: Reading through someone's post and trying to find anything wrong with it. If you find anything --> post criticism, if you don't find anything --> accept conclusion. It's SOP even on Less Wrong, and it's not totally stupid but it's really not what rationalists are supposed to do.

I think my hackles got raised by the claim that your perception is "what it actually is" -- and that's a remarkably strong claim. It probably works better phrased like something along the lines of "trying to take your ego and preconceived notions out of the picture".

Yes, that is a big part of it, but it's more than that. It means you stop seeing things from one specific point of view. Think of how confused people get about issues like free will. Only once you stop thinking about the issue from the perspective of an agent and ask what is actually happening from the perspective of the universe can you resolve the confusion.

Or, if you want to see some great examples of people who get this wrong all the time, go to the James Randi forums. There's a whole host of people there who will say things during discussions like "Well it's your claim so you have the burden of proof. I am perfectly happy to change my mind if you show me proof that I'm wrong." and who think that this makes them rationalists. Good grief.

Any links to egregious examples? :-)

I have spent some time going through your posts but I couldn't really find any egregious examples. Maybe I got you confused with someone else. I did notice that where politics were involved you're overly prone to talking about "the left" even though the universe does not think in terms of "left" or "right". But of course that's not exactly unique to you.

One other instance I found:

Otherwise, I still think you're confused between the model class and the model complexity (= degrees of freedom), but we've set out our positions and it's fine that we continue to disagree.

It's not a huge deal but I personally would not classify ideas as belonging to people, for the reasons described earlier.

Comment author: Velorien 01 August 2014 04:47:59PM 1 point [-]

I suppose "elementary" in the sense of "fundamental" or "simple" or "not relying on other skills before you can learn it", rather than in the sense of "easy" or "widespread".

Contrast literacy. Being to read and write one's own language is elementary. It can be grasped by a small child, and has no prerequisites other than vision, reasonable motor control and not having certain specific brain dysfunctions. Yet one does not have to cast one's mind that far back through history to reach the days in which this skill was reserved for an educated minority, and most people managed to live their whole lives without picking it up.

Comment author: Velorien 01 August 2014 04:07:52PM 2 points [-]

Could you describe this skill in more detail please? If it is one I do not possess, I would like to learn.

Comment author: Sophronius 01 August 2014 04:35:36PM *  2 points [-]

Your attitude makes me happy, thank you. :)

It's the most basic rationalist skill there is, in my opinion, but for some reason it's not much talked about here. I call it "thinking like the universe" as opposed to "thinking like a human". It means you remove yourself from the picture, you forget all about your favourite views and you stop caring about the implications of your answer since those should not impact the truth of the matter, and describe the situation in purely factual terms. You don't follow any specific chain of logic towards finding an answer: You instead allow the answer to naturally flow from the facts.

It means you don't ask "which facts argue in favour of my view and which against?", but "what are the facts?"
It means you don't ask "What is my hypothesis?", you ask "which hypotheses flow naturally from the facts?"
It means you don't ask "What do I believe?" but "what would an intelligent person believe given these facts?"
It means you don't ask "which hypothesis do I believe is true?", but "how does the probability mass naturally divide itself over competing hypotheses based on the evidence?"
It means you don't ask "How can I test this hypothesis?" but "Which test would maximally distinguish between competing hypotheses?"
It means you never ever ask who has the "burden of proof".

And so on and so forth. I see it as the most fundamental skill because it allows you to ask the right questions, and if you start with the wrong question it really doesn't matter what you do with it afterwards.

Comment author: Velorien 01 August 2014 04:57:32PM 1 point [-]

I think I understand now, thank you.

Do you follow any specific practices in order to internalise this approach, or do you simply endeavour to apply it whenever you remember?

Comment author: Sophronius 01 August 2014 05:27:26PM *  3 points [-]

The primary thing I seem to do is to remind myself to care about the right things. I am irrelevant. My emotions are irrelevant. Truth is not influenced by what I want to be true. I am frequently amazed by the degree with which my emotions are influenced by subconscious beliefs. For example I notice that the people who make me most angry when they're irrational are the ones I respect the most. People who get offended usually believe at some level that they are entitled to being offended. People who are bad at getting to the truth of a matter usually care more about how they feel than about what is actually true. (This is related to the fundamental optimization problem: The truth will always sound less truthful than the most truthful sounding falsehood.) Noticing that kind of thing is often more effective than trying to control emotions the hard way.

Secondly, you want to pay attention to your thoughts as much as possible. This is just meditation, really. If you become conscious of your thoughts, you gain a degree of control over them. Notice what you think, when you think it, and why. If a question makes you angry, don't just suppress the anger, ask yourself why.

For the rest it's just about cultivating a habit of asking the right questions. Never ask yourself what you think, since the universe doesn't care what you think. Instead say "Velorien believes X: How much does this increase the probability of X?".

Bertrand Russel gets it right, of course

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 02:39:13AM 5 points [-]

"One thing," whispered Professor Quirrell. "One thing... that might do it... or it might not... but to obtain it... is beyond your power, or mine..."

Oh, it was just the setup for a subquest, said Harry's Inner Critic.

All the other parts screamed for that part to shut up. Life didn't work like that. Ancient artifacts could be found, but not in a month, not when you couldn't leave Hogwarts and were still in your first year.

Of course, that rule does not apply if the artifact was hidden by a man who thinks in story plots.

Chapter 12:

“Additionally, I must tell you that this year, the third-floor corridor on the right-hand side is out of bounds to everyone who does not wish to die a very painful death. It is guarded by an elaborate series of dangerous and potentially lethal traps, and you cannot possibly get past all of them, especially if you are only in your first year."

Chapter 17:

“One last thing then, Harry. You are not to attempt the forbidden door on the third-floor corridor. There's no possible way you could get through all the traps, and I wouldn't want to hear that you'd been hurt trying. Why, I doubt that you could so much as open the first door, since it's locked and you don't know the spell Alohomora -”

Chapter 27:

“..meanwhile Dumbledore had happened to sneeze while passing them in the hallway, and a small package had accidentally dropped out of his pockets, and inside had been two matched wardbreaker's monocles of incredible quality. The Weasley twins had tested their new monocles on the "forbidden" third-floor corridor, making a quick trip to the magic mirror and back, and they hadn't been able to see all the detection webs clearly, but the monocles had shown a lot more than they'd seen the first time.

Of course they would have to be very careful never to get caught with the monocles in their possession, or they would end up in the Headmaster's office getting a stern lecture and maybe even threats of expulsion.

Comment author: cousin_it 28 July 2014 12:09:19AM *  4 points [-]

So here's an obvious way to fix all known problems of the horcrux spell. You need a variant that kills the caster and moves their ghost into the victim's body. To avoid personality conflicts, the victim should be a baby who doesn't have much of a personality yet. And since the spell doesn't use an intermediate item, knowledge is not lost. Sounds like what happened to baby Harry, right?

Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 07:27:40PM 0 points [-]

Except there's still no continuity of self.

Comment author: avichapman 29 August 2014 02:56:18AM 1 point [-]

I don't think that would bother me. If the resulting person has all of my memories and personality and everything else that I consider important about myself and the original copy was destroyed painlessly it would make no difference.

But then again, I'm a programmer. I copy data structures and destroy the originals all the time and yet treat them as one and the same.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 28 July 2014 05:29:04AM 2 points [-]

Almost. Harry still grew up as a baby/child, and not as a genius wizard.

The first horcrux was off of Lily's death burst, passing some personality traits of Quirrell into Harry. The next death burst will be Quirrell's, which will transfer his intelligence into Harry.

Quirrell casts his own death burst into Harry?

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 12:03:52AM *  27 points [-]

I may be pointing out the obvious, but...

Professor Quirrell closed his eyes. His head leaned back into the pillow. "You were lucky," the Defense Professor said in a soft voice, "that a unicorn in Transfigured form... did not set off the Hogwarts wards, as a strange creature... I shall have to... take this outside the grounds, to make use of it... but that can be managed. I shall tell them that I wish to look upon the lake... I will ask you to sustain the Transfiguration before you go, and it should last long enough, after that... and with my last strength, dispel whatever death-alarms were placed to watch over the herd... which, the unicorn being not yet dead, but only Transfigured, will not yet have triggered... you were very lucky, Mr. Potter."

This is how the troll was smuggled into Hogwarts without the wards going off. In all likelihood, Quirrell had the transfigured troll on his person when Dumbledore identified to the Hogwarts wards "The Defense Professor stands within this circle". Trolls self-transfigure as a form of regeneration, so the transfiguration would not kill the troll or be detectable.

Comment author: Jurily 30 July 2014 01:53:49AM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure he'd needed to do that. Until we hear otherwise, he has access to all the knowledge of Salazar, who knew enough to build Hogwarts. Which also means the source code to the wards and the means to change them.

Can you even transfigure something that transfigures itself back? Of course Quirrell can do it if it's possible, but is it possible?

Comment author: Velorien 30 July 2014 10:33:03AM 1 point [-]

Until we hear otherwise, he has access to all the knowledge of Salazar, who knew enough to build Hogwarts.

This may be an exaggeration. First, it seems improbable that Salazar entrusted all his magical knowledge to the basilisk, if only because that would have been a ridiculous amount of magical knowledge. Salazar wouldn't have known which pieces of knowledge from his time were going to become lost, only that some would based on existing trends, so if he was going to tell the basilisk everything he thought valuable, it would have taken forever. Also, there's no reason to believe that basilisks have perfect memories - unless I'm misremembering, the basilisk as a species was chosen for its snakeness, deadliness and longevity rather than its intellect.

Which also means the source code to the wards and the means to change them.

Salazar was only responsible for part of Hogwarts. We don't know that he was at all responsible for the wards, only that he had admin access to them (in order to make them ignore the basilisk), which is no surprise since he was one of the four founders. We also don't know that Godric didn't revoke said admin access after Salazar betrayed him and left, in which case that portion of Salazar's knowledge would be useless. In fact, it would be downright weird if Godric hadn't done so.

Can you even transfigure something that transfigures itself back? Of course Quirrell can do it if it's possible, but is it possible?

Since I feel the wrathful shade of Professor McGonagall watching over my shoulder, I'm going to say "I don't know". But if I had to guess, a transfigured object takes on all the properties of its new form, including the property of "not having troll regenerative powers". So if you could initially transfigure the troll faster than its regeneration kicked in, you'd have no trouble maintaining it thereafter.

Comment author: 75th 01 August 2014 04:26:30AM *  3 points [-]

First, it seems improbable that Salazar entrusted all his magical knowledge to the basilisk, if only because that would have been a ridiculous amount of magical knowledge.

Well, it's not like he had to teach the Basilisk a full Hogwarts curriculum; he only had to teach it what he knew that triggered the Interdict of Merlin, which is only the top whateverth percentile of his repertoire.

Salazar wouldn't have known which pieces of knowledge from his time were going to become lost,

Sure he could have. All he had to do was write down the most powerful stuff he knew in descending order until he got to the point where someone else started understanding what they were reading.

Also, there's no reason to believe that basilisks have perfect memories

The Basilisk may not have a perfect memory as an animal, but it "would be huge flaw in sscheme" if Salazar's magical Parseltongue knowledge was corruptible by the limitations of any old snake's brain.

Salazar was only responsible for part of Hogwarts. We don't know that he was at all responsible for the wards, only that he had admin access to them…. We also don't know that Godric didn't revoke said admin access after Salazar betrayed him and left

I think you're extending your computer analogy too far. Salazar didn't have a revocable password to the wards, he knew the magic that created them, and the rest of the Founders certainly did not have the power to revoke spells from the Source of Magic.

Don't get me wrong, I think we're meant to understand that Quirrell did smuggle in the troll as a small transfigured object that Dumbledore drew his circle around. But nevertheless, I think we should also assume until further notice that h̶e̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶s̶ whoever got the basilisk's knowledge got the most powerful magic that Slytherin knew.

EDIT: Hedged my last sentence, since Chapter 102's horcrux information introduces potential ambiguity as to how Tom Riddle's knowledge has been propagated amongst his alter egos' bodies.

Comment author: Velorien 01 August 2014 09:50:57AM 1 point [-]

Well, it's not like he had to teach the Basilisk a full Hogwarts curriculum; he only had to teach it what he knew that triggered the Interdict of Merlin, which is only the top whateverth percentile of his repertoire.

Fair point. I'd forgotten about the Interdict. With that said (and this applies to your second point as well), it seems unlikely that the Interdict of Merlin is the only reason for knowledge to be lost over time. For example, Riddle apparently found the horcrux ritual in a book, and that seems like powerful mostly-lost knowledge. Also, wizard society generally seems much worse at knowledge maximisation than muggle society. (side thought: is there even a single mention in either canon of wizard universities?)

The Basilisk may not have a perfect memory as an animal, but it "would be huge flaw in sscheme" if Salazar's magical Parseltongue knowledge was corruptible by the limitations of any old snake's brain.

True. One has to wonder, generally speaking, just how the whole thing worked, given that Parseltongue seems to blur terms for which it does not have an exact parallel ("schoolmaster", "hourglass to move through time"), and that seems like it would be a problem for advanced spell instructions.

I think you're extending your computer analogy too far. Salazar didn't have a revocable password to the wards, he knew the magic that created them, and the rest of the Founders certainly did not have the power to revoke spells from the Source of Magic.

We don't know that. The four founders came together to raise Hogwarts in the first place, suggesting that each of them knew only some of the magic necessary. There is no reason to believe that Salazar was the one who knew the magic for the Hogwarts wards, rather than, say, Rowena.

Additionally, you don't need to revoke a spell from the Source of Magic to prevent someone else making use of it. Going back to the computer analogy, being a system's original programmer doesn't mean you can automatically hack into any instance of that system. It is worth remembering that once Salazar left, it would have been three magical prodigies against one in the matter of establishing Hogwarts security.

Likewise don't get me wrong, I think it's reasonable to assume that whoever got the basilisk's knowledge got at least some very powerful magic from Slytherin; I just don't think we should overestimate how much that was.

Comment author: Jurily 02 August 2014 09:06:52PM 0 points [-]

Chapter 20:

"Yes, nuclear weapons!" Professor Quirrell was almost shouting now. "Even He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named never used those, perhaps because he didn't want to rule over a heap of ash! They never should have been made! And it will only get worse with time!" Professor Quirrell was standing up straight instead of leaning on his desk. "There are gates you do not open, there are seals you do not breach! The fools who can't resist meddling are killed by the lesser perils early on, and the survivors all know that there are secrets you do not share with anyone who lacks the intelligence and the discipline to discover them for themselves! Every powerful wizard knows that! Even the most terrible Dark Wizards know that! And those idiot Muggles can't seem to figure it out! The eager little fools who discovered the secret of nuclear weapons didn't keep it to themselves, they told their fool politicians and now we must live under the constant threat of annihilation!"

A wizard university seems out of the question.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 28 July 2014 07:22:04PM *  14 points [-]

This suggests that the troll was known to Hogwarts as "The Defense Professor", and so explains what the wards reported:

"... The wards of Hogwarts record that no foreign creature has entered, and that it was the Defense Professor who killed Hermione Granger."

Comment author: Romashka 11 December 2014 01:26:24PM 0 points [-]

Ok. In that case, Quirrell can be hiding on his person or in some magical 'all-holding invisible pocket' an army of trolls, or anything he thinks would be better suited for attack (transfigured wizards?), and Dumbledore is ultimately doomed.

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 12:58:55PM 3 points [-]

So, people did not think this was obvious?

Screw that. I am willing to bet $50 US (1:1) that Mr. Hat & Cloak is Baba Yaga.

Comment author: hairyfigment 29 July 2014 07:19:18AM 1 point [-]

I'll take that bet, if it's still open. Though please see the possible spoiler in my previous comment if you're basing this on your interpretation of Eliezer's motives.

Comment author: solipsist 30 July 2014 01:57:06PM *  0 points [-]

Sorry, I gave lmm priority. Really we should have used your interest to obtain better market odds.

It's too late now, but does anybody have a recommendation of practical mechanisms for ad hoc predictions markets?

Comment author: lmm 28 July 2014 07:57:57PM 4 points [-]

I'm interested in taking you up on this. Could you give a more explicit definition? How will the bet be resolved?

Comment author: solipsist 29 July 2014 02:14:05AM 3 points [-]

I'm not picky on definitions. "The entity Hermione called 'Mister Incredibly Suspicious Person' has Baba Yaga's memories." That definition is looser than it needs to be, but I'm giving you generous odds.

Resolution would be informal, with us PMing payment instructions to each other. The payment information I would send you would be cheap, non-sketchy, and anonymous for me. We might agree to call the bet off by February 28th 2014 if the bet is not resolved by then. If there's somehow a definitional dispute, we work it out, possibly with someone else on the forum arbitrating. Default option is to cancel the bet.

If I lose the bet I will laugh it off. You probably should not accept unless you would do the same.

Comment author: lmm 29 July 2014 06:57:27PM 3 points [-]

I think the most likely scenario is that we'll hear no more about either of them. So I want to win that case; if the two are unrelated then I doubt we'll hear anything explicit to that effect.

Rather than worry about what's "cheap" let's just say the loser pays $50 gross, any payment fees or the like can come out of the winnings. And I'll stipulate that anything bitcoiny qualifies as sketchy.

And yeah, $50 is an amount that I can comfortably toss for online entertainment without checking my bank balance.

Comment author: solipsist 29 July 2014 07:14:21PM 3 points [-]

How about this stipulation: if the name Baba Yaga does not appear in the book again, and Eliezer Yudkowsky does not Word of God that Mr. Hat & Cloak is Baba Yaga, you win. I'm expecting Baba Yaga to be important, and if she's not mentioned again or only mentioned offhandedly I will likely concede.

We are on the same page about payments.

Comment author: lmm 30 July 2014 07:26:17AM 9 points [-]

Sounds fair enough. So we have a bet?

Comment author: solipsist 04 December 2014 02:28:38AM 1 point [-]

The latest progress report suggests that chapters will resume in February, so the story might not finish until March. Extend the bet's expiration date to March 31st, 2015?

Comment author: lmm 04 December 2014 08:05:49AM 1 point [-]

Sure. Happy to push it out a bit longer actually, as I'm not confident there won't be further slippage; how about extending until June 30th?

Comment author: solipsist 04 December 2014 11:02:21AM 1 point [-]

Sure.

Comment author: solipsist 30 July 2014 11:11:58AM 9 points [-]

We have a bet. It's on!

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 February 2015 04:33:32PM 6 points [-]

By request, I declare solipsist to have lost this bet.

Comment author: ChristianKl 29 July 2014 12:57:42PM 0 points [-]

Are you betting that in a future chapter of HPMOR there will the explicit statement that Mr. Hat & Cloak is Baba Yaga? What happens to the bet if HPMOR ends without it being revealed who Mr.Hat&Cloak happens to be?

If I lose the bet I will laugh it off. You probably should not accept unless you would do the same.

So you aren't really up for betting?

Comment author: solipsist 29 July 2014 04:09:35PM 1 point [-]

No, I am up for betting. If unforeseen plot developments make the resolution of the bet unclear, I want determining the winner to be casual and non-adversarial. I will not argue technicalities even if they could cause me to win.

What happens to the bet if HPMOR ends without it being revealed who Mr.Hat & Cloak happens to be?

That really depends. If the identity of Mr. Hat & Cloak remains unclear but Harry finds a black hat in Snape's trunk and a black cloak in Dumbledore's office, I would probably lose. If Harry figures out that Nicholas Flamel is really Baba Yaga and she's been hiding in Hogwarts all year, I would probably win. I'd be happy to let a mutual chosen third party arbitrate.

Comment author: gwern 29 July 2014 04:01:52PM 6 points [-]

What happens to the bet if HPMOR ends without it being revealed who Mr.Hat&Cloak happens to be?

I think Yudkowsky is enough of a non-asshole that if that's the case, he'll consent to say whether Baba Yaga had anything to do with Hat & Cloak. Remember, he endorses betting on beliefs.

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 01:22:15PM *  1 point [-]

What happens to the bet if HPMOR ends without it being revealed who Mr.Hat&Cloak happens to be?

-

We might agree to call the bet off by February 28th 201[5] if the bet is not resolved by then. If there's somehow a definitional dispute, we work it out, possibly with someone else on the forum arbitrating. Default option is to cancel the bet.

-

So you aren't really up for betting?

-

If I lose the bet I will laugh it off. You probably should not accept unless you would do the same.

I believe he(?) means he will laugh off the loss of the money, in the sense of treating it as not a big deal.

Comment author: solipsist 29 July 2014 02:17:42AM 0 points [-]

Edits: I meant February 28th 2015.

Comment author: Khoth 28 July 2014 06:30:58PM 2 points [-]

Why Baba Yaga?

Comment author: arundelo 29 July 2014 02:42:03AM 4 points [-]

She's mentioned in at least three chapters. In chapter 12 Quirrell describes her as the "quote undying unquote Baba Yaga". (To my knowledge she's not mentioned at all by Rowling.) The Law of Conservation of Detail tells us that she is going to be plot-relevant somehow.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 02 August 2014 02:31:41AM 0 points [-]

She appears in the Prisoner of Azkaban video game.

Comment author: gwern 02 August 2014 03:56:19AM 1 point [-]

As a little info card, according to a wikia entry, no? Not much of an appearance even for a distant licensing spinoff.

Comment author: solipsist 29 July 2014 12:15:20PM 2 points [-]

I'll add "The Massacre of Albania in the Fifteenth Century", a book title which triggered my brain's foreshadowing alarm in chapter 26.

The "undying" Witch Formerly Known As Baba Yaga has gone by many names, including Nicholas Flamel.

Comment author: Algernoq 20 December 2014 06:05:13AM 0 points [-]

Also, Harry's Pet Rock was mentioned twice, so I've got a theory: Harry's original Pet Rock, Harry's father's rock, and the Philosopher's Stone are all the same rock. It would be really ironic.

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 09:39:52AM 5 points [-]

(To my knowledge she's not mentioned at all by Rowling.)

I can never see references to her without amusement. Bear in mind that the "canonical" Baba Yaga of Russian folklore is a cantankerous old witch who hobbles around with one leg made of bone, lives in a hut on chicken legs, and uses a giant mortar and pestle as her transport of choice. Such a character would make the likes of Hagrid and Moody seem wholly pedestrian.

Eliezer's re-imagining of her as a Dark Lady, meanwhile, just summons the most fantastic mental images.

Comment author: Romashka 11 December 2014 01:30:00PM 0 points [-]

Maybe the author has read some theory on Russian folclore. Курьи ножки might not be chicken's legs; some scholars think курьи means 'made from smoke' and so BY's hut is actually a portal between worlds (between the world of the living, where the hero comes from, and the world where Koschey the Immortal lives - Koschey, incidentally, has something of a Horcrux - a needle hidden very thoroughly, and if you break it, he dies.)

Comment author: solipsist 29 July 2014 02:19:28AM *  4 points [-]

I've suspected Baba Yaga would be dramatically revealed since the sentence I read her name. Since then there's been no shortage of evidence which can be somehow contorted to confirm my theory.

Comment author: ikacer 04 August 2014 03:58:16PM 1 point [-]

I have some evidence opposing your theory.

EY has made a habit of throwing references to other fanfics in HPMOR. For example, David Monroe is a character in A Black Comedy. Baba Yaga appears in many fanfics, most famously in Turn Me Loose: A Harry Potter Adventure, where she is an immortal Dark Lady.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 August 2014 04:55:32PM 0 points [-]

Baba Yaga appears in many fanfics

Isn't Baba Yaga a folk tale character?

Comment author: Velorien 04 August 2014 05:17:48PM *  1 point [-]

1) Baba Yaga, an existing fictional character, appears in a fanfic as an immortal Dark Lady.

2) Eliezer Yudkowsky makes a reference to the Baba Yaga from that fanfic in his own work.

Comment author: gwern 04 August 2014 04:38:43PM 0 points [-]

For example, David Monroe is a character in A Black Comedy.

And also a character in MoR. As are various ponies.

Baba Yaga appears in many fanfics, most famously in Turn Me Loose: A Harry Potter Adventure, where she is an immortal Dark Lady.

So by your examples' logic, we should expect Baba Yaga to show up as a character in MoR, possibly not as an immortal Dark Lady but maybe a mortal Dark Lord.

Comment author: Velorien 04 August 2014 05:18:22PM 2 points [-]

If I understand ikacer's theory correctly, it is that:

David Monroe's name may be a reference to a piece of fiction Eliezer likes, but that doesn't mean that his name will be of relevance to the plot. It is entirely credible that this name was included solely as a reference.

The existence of immortal Dark Lady Baba Yaga may be a reference to a piece of fiction Eliezer likes, but that doesn't mean that her existence will be of relevance to the plot. It is entirely credible that she was mentioned to exist solely as a reference, and this is more probable than solipsist's theory.

Comment author: gwern 04 August 2014 07:14:50PM 0 points [-]

David Monroe's name may be a reference to a piece of fiction Eliezer likes, but that doesn't mean that his name will be of relevance to the plot.

My point was that the Monroe example and the ponies show that references play roles in the plot, so even if a character once named 'Baba Yaga' shows up, we wouldn't necessarily expect her/him to act exactly like the Baba Yaga in the other fic, in the same way Monroe doesn't play the same role or the ponies play the same role in MLP, but nevertheless, the character has to do something and at this stage in MoR, there's no room for frivolity or introducing a new character just for a throwaway gag, and all the foreshadowing suggests that the new role/character will be important - in the same way that Monroe was important for Quirrelmort's backstory and current nature.

Comment author: Velorien 04 August 2014 07:43:31PM 1 point [-]

But why would you not expect Baba Yaga to be like, say, the Elric brothers, mentioned solely as background detail?

Comment author: gwern 04 August 2014 08:30:07PM *  0 points [-]

But now you're expanding the set of examples... My point was mostly that his set of examples did not support his claim like he thought they did. What he should have done is not brought up Monroe etc, but the Elric brothers, Death Note, Shea etc and argued that there were many more allusions which were just allusions than there were foreshadowing of future characters and hence an allusion or two to Baba Yaga still left the probability of a future appearance at a risible 1% or something.

Comment author: solipsist 04 August 2014 05:45:24PM *  0 points [-]

I agree completely, from an outside point of view. For example, there was a shoutout in the very sentence Baba Yaga was introduced.

Past Professors of Defence have included not just the legendary wandering hero Harold Shea but also the quote undying unquote Baba Yaga, yes, I see some of you are still shuddering at the sound of her name even though she's been dead for six hundred years.

I claim Baba Yaga is important and Harold Shea is a decoy. Yes, I also think my hypothesis sounds arbitrary and a bit crazy.

Comment author: gwern 28 July 2014 06:29:34PM 3 points [-]

How do you go from the old Quirrel troll-in-pocket theory to Hat & Cloak == Baba Yaga? And which Hat & Cloak?

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 08:27:23PM *  2 points [-]

I updated on the probability that something could seem strikingly obvious on a first reading, escape the notice of hundreds of very smart people, have little direct evidence, and still be true.

I didn't realize that there were multiple Hat & Cloaks. I meant the ones that appeared to Blaize Zabini and to Hermione, if that limits them.

Comment author: Velorien 28 July 2014 01:10:46PM 6 points [-]

I would take you up on that, but in my memory palace one of the walls is occupied by a large chalkboard covered with lines of "I will not underestimate Eliezer Yudkowsky".

Comment author: Benito 28 July 2014 10:22:48AM 1 point [-]

That is a nice theory.

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 03:33:14AM *  1 point [-]

Speculative:

Quirrell couldn't have made the troll sun resistant, since Harry touched the troll and he can't touch Quirrell magic. Explanations include:

  1. Quirrell legilimensed (say) Professor Sprout to jinx the troll
  2. Hat & Cloak (who is not Quirrell) jinxed and redirected Quirrell's troll towards Hermione. Quirrell had ulterior motives for releasing the troll (e.g. as a distraction so Snape could pull Philosopher stone mischief).
Comment author: ChristianKl 28 July 2014 02:00:51PM 2 points [-]

Alternatively there are some magic portions that can be used to make the troll sun resistant.

Comment author: Velorien 28 July 2014 05:51:36PM 0 points [-]

Do we know this, or is it speculation based on our knowledge of potions in general?

Also, is it safe to assume that potions work on trolls, given that trolls are constantly transfiguring into themselves (and thus automatically flushing out changes to their physical state)?

Comment author: mare-of-night 29 July 2014 05:03:50AM 1 point [-]

Hmm... Trolls are rocks (sort-of), the Philosopher's Stone is a rock, can the Philosopher's Stone turn you into a troll?

(This is probably a stupid theory, but maybe it's related to something more workable.)

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 09:45:28AM *  4 points [-]

I don't think that Eliezer's trolls are rocks.

  • Quirrell states that sunlight freezes them in place, rather than that it petrifies them.

  • Quirrell states that a troll is constantly transfiguring itself into its own body, which means that the (apparently organic) form it's normally in is its true form.

  • The troll Harry kills doesn't turn to stone.

Comment author: mare-of-night 29 July 2014 04:43:50PM 1 point [-]

Thanks. I was getting them confused with Middle Earth trolls.

Comment author: JTHM 27 July 2014 04:51:51PM 4 points [-]

Harry seems to have neglected the possibility that the Philosopher's Stone is a general-purpose transmutation device, thus explaining why it would be able to produce both gold and the elixir of life.

And since Fullmetal Alchemist was plagiarized from wizard lore, you'd think this would be a reasonably common hypothesis.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 27 July 2014 12:48:44PM 3 points [-]

This problem could be fixed, in principle:

Merlin'ss Interdict preventss powerful sspells from passing through ssuch a device, ssince it iss not truly alive. Dark Wizardss who think to return thuss are weaker, eassily disspatched.

You need two cooperating Dark Wizards. (I know, much easier said than done.) They share knowledge of all spells. One of them makes a horcrux, the other teaches him all the spells again. Then the other makes a horcrux, and the former teaches him.

Or maybe you just need one Dark Wizard, and one loyal servant, willing to make the Unbreakable Vow. Servant makes a vow to teach the reborn Dark Wizard all his spells, but never use them for himself or tell them to anyone else.

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 12:53:18PM 3 points [-]

Or maybe you just need one Dark Wizard, and one loyal servant, willing to make the Unbreakable Vow. Servant makes a vow to teach the reborn Dark Wizard all his spells, but never use them for himself or tell them to anyone else.

Bellatrix?

Comment author: buybuydandavis 28 July 2014 05:21:47AM *  2 points [-]

Or Quirrell focuses Quirrell's death burst into Harry?

Harry think's he's gaining knowledge, but it's actually Quirrell uploading into Harry and taking over.

Comment author: shminux 27 July 2014 01:47:21AM 10 points [-]

So this is why this forum is dying, EY casting AK v2.0.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 27 July 2014 12:28:28PM *  7 points [-]

What exactly is this supposed to mean? (Besides being a joke, obviously.) Is it Eliezer's public duty to keep writing new Sequences for the rest of his life? Or what other specific duties on LW is he neglecting?

Eliezer is not a superhuman Friendly AI. He is merely trying to build one. Most of things that Eliezer could do here, someone else could do, too. Or we can all choose to sit and eat popcorn, and complain when we are bored.

EDIT: I guess you already heard something about reinforcement. From that perspective, is this a helpful reaction to publishing a new chapter of HP? It's as if someone gives you a cookie, and you spit on him, and then you complain about why he doesn't bring you cookies more often.

RETRACTED FOR DERAILING THE THREAD.

Comment author: shminux 28 July 2014 03:45:16PM 1 point [-]

Uh, this was meant as a half-joke, and apparently it wasn't very successful. Anyway, this is a wrong thread to discuss the health of the forum. And no, I don't think that Eliezer has any public duty to the forum readers, if you were wondering. I was simply commenting on his disengagement, quite likely for very good reasons (like that he has a lot more useful feedback on FB).

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 29 July 2014 06:48:19AM 1 point [-]

I apologize for my too strong reaction and for derailing the thread.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 July 2014 03:47:48PM 2 points [-]

Eliezer recently deleted posts from LW but on the other hand doesn't write very much on LW. That's behavior that's not healthy for this community.

Comment author: Alsadius 28 July 2014 05:12:09PM 3 points [-]

1) I think we can hardly criticize him for not writing enough, given that he's about to spend a month writing a book for free for all of us.

2) It'd be pretty sad if having a moderator in place of a member was an active harm to the community.

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 July 2014 10:05:28PM 1 point [-]

2) It'd be pretty sad if having a moderator in place of a member was an active harm to the community.

Moderation is about leadership. If you do it from the shadows it's not as effective.

Comment author: Alsadius 29 July 2014 04:22:29AM 1 point [-]

Leadership is not the essential purpose of moderation. The purpose is to raise the tone of the debate and make the community adhere to norms. If the active membership is pretty good at adhering to norms, and you just need to take out occasional trash, shadowy moderation works fine. LW has a dedicated core with extremely strong norms, and I suspect that even if Eliezer went into a coma for the next year and the site was completely unmoderated that wouldn't change.

Comment author: lmm 28 July 2014 07:55:18PM 0 points [-]

Sad? I'd say quite the opposite. If the best contribution to the community is that of normal members, and the contribution of moderators is a lesser one, that's well and good.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 28 July 2014 08:08:02AM *  7 points [-]

If this community depends on Eliezer writing, that would be a huge failure. I think we were supposed to become stronger, try harder, and cooperate. We had enough time to do that. If a group of people cannot replace one person, then either we don't care enough, or we failed to learn our lessons.

But actually, I think we are doing it quite well. (By "we" I mean the whole community; I specifically haven't contributed an article yet.) When Eliezer was writing the Sequences, he wrote one article per day. We have on average maybe three articles per day. If this is not enough, then how much would be enough? Five? Ten? Twenty? Are we trying to replace Reddit's output? I know I would like to see twenty new articles on LW every day, but that's just my inner procrastinator speaking. If I were more effective in real life and spent less time on internet, I would be barely able to read three articles (and their discussions) every day.

Having more content on LW can be a lost purpose. To some degree it reflects the health of the community. For example, if we were doing many cool things, and writing reports about them on LW, there would be many cool articles on LW. I'd like to see us being more awesome. But it doesn't work the other way round: by increasing the number of articles we can't increase our awesomeness in the real life.

I didn't mind the deleted article, but I also didn't mind that it was deleted. It was a shiny thing for procrastination, with no other value besides signalling author's smartness and contrarianism -- something this specific author does very frequently. This is a thing we shouldn't reward. I certainly would hate if other people started writing similar stuff. Or if the same author started doing it more often. (And unfortunately, this specific author seems to have some creepy mind-controlling powers he's using to get a lot of upvotes here, so the standard moderation fails. I don't fully understand his strategy, but it includes writing obscure comments which seem as if the author has something very interesting to say, but he just never says it. And then he rewards people for trying to guess what he meant, or simply for giving him attention. Everything he writes serves the ultimate purpose of drawing attention to his person, and he is doing it quite well. It's trolling 2.0 optimized for LessWrong. E.g. read this, although he lost a lot of karma there.)

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 July 2014 10:32:17AM 1 point [-]

I didn't mind the deleted article, but I also didn't mind that it was deleted.

It was more than one article. There are events that are more recent than the Will_Newsome episode.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 28 July 2014 01:40:26PM 1 point [-]

What were the more recent events?

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 July 2014 01:54:45PM *  7 points [-]

To cite a facebook post from last Wednesday by XiXiDu (LW-name):

Yudkowsky is again going all nuts over Roko's basilisk. All posts pertaining Roko's basilisk have been deleted from the LessWrong Facebook group, and several people who participated in the discussions appear to have been banned .

Also: old posts on LessWrong critical of him or MIRI are now being silently banned. See e.g. the first post here: http://lesswrong.com/user/Dmytry/overview/?count=20&after=t1_6c8z

Comment author: Velorien 28 July 2014 01:07:28PM 4 points [-]

I know I'm not the first person to say this, but in case any of the moderators and people generally in charge are listening: as a peripheral member of Less Wrong at best, this is a significant factor in my reluctance to become further involved with the site and its community. When I come here and see extremely typical forum drama like the Will_Newsome debacle, it greatly reduces my confidence that this is a good place to learn rationality and find suitable role models for its practice.

I realise that's an irrational judgment in many ways, but that's sort of the point. I come here to learn to think rationally, I see poor behaviour from the people who are supposed to possess the fruits of that learning effort, and my gut instinct is to go away again (rather than learn the skills that would allow me to override that gut instinct and seek maximum benefit from Less Wrong in spite of its flaws).

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 28 July 2014 01:41:40PM *  3 points [-]

This is reminding me of Heinlein's "Gulf", which describes intelligence/rationality training, and then testing it under stress.

There are also the teams in HPMOR.

However, (aside from that I'm citing fictional evidence) there may be an important difference between maintaining rationality under physical stress vs. maintaining rationality while sitting comfortably at a keyboard under social stress.

Comment author: DanArmak 27 July 2014 12:44:49PM 9 points [-]

Eliezer is not a superhuman Friendly AI. He is merely trying to build one.

A true EY fact!

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 26 July 2014 10:43:35PM *  2 points [-]

Rereading chapter 100 reminds me of the Twilight Sparkle lookalike among the unicorns.

it added nothing but confusion and awkwardness. If it were cut, no one who hadn't been told would ever realize that something had once been there. And now with this chapter we've got some pretty good confirmation that they're not sapient, so any inferences one might have drawn from it were false.

Comment author: Azathoth123 27 July 2014 12:13:27AM *  11 points [-]

I was under the impression the unicorn was Alicorn's cameo. Alicorn asked for a cameo as a unicorn, Eliezer agreed and even promised to make it plot relevant. I'm not sure what actually happened was quite what Alicorn had in mind.

Comment author: philh 27 July 2014 12:20:41PM 1 point [-]

There were two, one was Alicorn and the other was Twilight Sparkle (unnamed).

Comment author: buybuydandavis 26 July 2014 10:15:57PM *  16 points [-]

I think we're seeing the set up of the end game of the upload of Quirrellmort to Harry.

David Monroe, last descendant of a Noble House, family killed by Voldemort, the great champion to save Magical Britain against Voldemort. But instead of having the mass of Magical Britain rally around him, they generally make his difficult. When that plan of being a savior fails.

He then disappears. Poof.

Where is our champion now?

And poof! Harry Potter, last descendant of a Noble House, family killed by Voldemort, miraculously ends Voldemort rampage.

Years later, Monroe reappears as Quirrell, just in time to be the Defense Professor and mentor for this miraculous Harry Potter, who in fact is miraculous, for his age, or really any age. With a secret Dark Side that gives him great power. With so many similarities to Quirrell in personality and intelligence. With such a natural bond.

Perssonalitiess change, mix with victim'ss. Death iss not truly gainssaid. Real sself is losst, as you ssay. Not to my pressent tasste.

But if the victim is already very similar, perhaps more to his taste?

David Monroe, 2.0. Prepared as a baby to be a host. Prepared with a better history to be Savior of Magical Britain, prepared to be so similar to Quirrell.

We've got Harry bringing up Horcruxes, Quirrell going beyond his usual psycho smirk to burst out laughing, Quirrell explaining that a Horcrux is a ritual that transfers intelligence to an object, but woe is me,

Merlin'ss Interdict preventss powerful sspells from passing through ssuch a device, ssince it iss not truly alive.

If only there were objects that weren't not alive that the intelligence can pass into, then they'd get all the powerful spells too.

Oh, and by the way, I was going to teach you all my powerful spells, but you never asked, and now there is no time, no time.

If only there were a quick way to pass all my knowledge to you, but alas,...

Quirrell has Harry begging for this lost knowledge. Perhaps he'd also be begging to be part of a ritual to pass Quirrell's intelligence into him?

Other things.

Why forbid Harry from bringing him unicorns? For that matter, why didn't Quirrell feast on unicorns again and again to keep his strength up? Why doesn't he have a herd of them up in a ranch in the mountains somewhere?

Harry turned, stared at the surrounding trees. "Have a herd of unicorns at St. Mungos. Floo the patients there, or use portkeys."

"Yes, that would work."

The Sense of Doom is diminishing. Perhaps this is what would allow their magic to interact, and thereby complete the ritual? Perhaps that's why Quirrell isn't more effectively fighting his failing health. Or is that only to motivate Harry to look into methods or fighting death with some desperation?

EDIT
On the "uploading to a new body" idea, see Quirrell rubbing their noses in their ignorance:

The smile that the Auror gave had absolutely no mirth in it. “So where’s the real Quirinus Quirrell, eh? Under an Imperius in the bottom of a trunk somewheree, while you take a hair now and then for your illegal Polyjuice?”
"You are making highly questionable assumptions," the Defense Professor said with an edged voice. "What makes you think I did not steal his body outright using incredibly Dark magic?"

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 27 July 2014 05:54:09PM 3 points [-]

For that matter, why didn't Quirrell feast on unicorns again and again to keep his strength up? Why doesn't he have a herd of them up in a ranch in the mountains somewhere?

Quirrell is too smart not to do this. I think he's pretending to be weaker than he really is, in order to manipulate Harry.

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 02:31:39AM 2 points [-]

Do not try to obtain Sstone yoursself. I forbid.

This was said by Quirrell in Parseltongue. If you can only tell the truth in Parseltongue, then Quirrell was really forbidding Harry from obtaining the stone himself.

Comment author: mjr 29 July 2014 11:24:21PM 3 points [-]

Well. Technically the statement only describes the act of speaking itself. There is no explicit information conveyed about Quirrell actually wishing or intending Harry to follow his injunction.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 28 July 2014 03:39:49PM 3 points [-]

Harry trying to obtain the stone by himself would be like Harry sneaking into Akazaban by himself. Harry developing a plan, and coming to Quirrel for assistance OTOH...

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 04:37:25PM 0 points [-]

Indeed, Harry would not search for the stone alone. The twins participated in Hermione's Last Stand to level up for the final arc, and the Lestrange open bracket has yet to be closed.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 27 July 2014 11:53:48PM *  3 points [-]

That's a good possibility I hadn't thought of. Too busy confirming my pet theory.

Quirrell's apparent weakness, feigned or actual, serves to manipulate Harry.

His actual weakness weakens the Sense of Doom, and thereby may allow their magic to interact. This is why I think actual weakness is still likely, despite the manifest downside. My pet theory is some variation on Quirrell uploading into Harry, and this is supported by a bunch of evidence I won't go into again. But if this is the goal, being able to interact with Harry, magically or physically, would be an important enabling factor.