= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, January 2015, chapter 103 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (173)
I'd agree - I doubt Carrow is a Horocrux, but the repeated mentions of him might indicate that he has some further role to play, possible involving dark rituals. But the joint probability (Carrow will appear) and (his role will involve dark rituals) and (dark ritual is a Horocrux) is quite low.
Also, IIRC there are 7 Horocruxes in cannon. In HPMOR, it is hinted that we have one for each greek element (magma, ocean trench, stratosphere and buried underground) and one in space. Presumably, Harry is one and Quirrel is one. So all Horocruxes are accounted for.
Joint probabilities don't work that way if you have a designed story line. Esp. by this author.
I'm sorry I don't understand. Even when discussing a work of fiction, the probability that 'Carrow has conducted a dark ritual which makes him a Horocrux' has to be strictly lower than the probability that 'Carrow has a further part to play'.
Probability doen't stop working in certain fields, its universal.
Strictly lower, yes. "Quite low" was what you said, and that part can be disputed based on a read of the author.
Sure, if you think you have a really good read of the author. But as I said, all Horocruxes are accounted for, and as gjm said, there is a simpler explanation, and so I'm sticking by my opinion that Carrow probably isn't a Horocrux, even if he does show up later.
That sounds a lot more like a Rowling type twist than an Eliezer type twist. There are elements that could be interpreted as vague and oblique hints, but it doesn't suggest particularly clever or well-considered behavior on anyone's part.