= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alsadius 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'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.