= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
This whole idea is actually a major source of conflict in my family. I consider myself an atheist, but I enjoy Christmas and see it as an excuse to get together with my family, exchange gifts, listen to the music, eat food, light a fire in the fireplace, and just generally experience quality time with my few blood relations. I'm actually quite attached to the holiday. It has been the source of many fond memories.
However, my parents aren't letting me participate this year, because of my beliefs. They think Christmas is about Jesus and by celebrating I'll be cheapening the holiday for them. They don't understand why, if I'm an atheist, I should even want to celebrate Christmas, and that I'm not being consistent with what I think. Therefore, I won't be able to give or receive presents, go to church or do Christmas related things with them.
I personally agree with Alicorn's and taw's comments: I see no reason to feel hostile towards the holiday. Does anyone have any advice for what I should do?
no two people who are completely rational should ever disagree?
No two people who are completely rational and have the same information should ever disagree.
Thanks for the correction -- fixed.
Applying Bayesian Analysis to History (post idea)
I am an aspiring historian and I'm very interested in ways to apply Bayesian reasoning to history. When I say "history" I mean the study of history -- as a historian, allowing my map of what has happened in the past to match the territory, and being able to represent more accurately the relative strength of historical evidence for and against various historical models.
I know that historical evidence works quite a bit differently from scientific evidence. But I think that historical evidence is also useful. Historians, in recording and assembling secondary sources, assess the relative strength of evidence (mostly primary sources) with regards to a topic already. But there must be a way to do it more formally. Shouldn't there be a right answer, just as no two people who are completely rational (and have the same information) should ever disagree?
This is a post (or series of posts) I might write in the future, and I have put a bit of thought into it so far, but I need to do quite a bit more research. Is there anyone interested in reading something on this topic? Has it been done before? Is there anyone who is knowledgeable about how historians treat evidence who might be able to offer some insights?
In canon, why did Harry even want the stone? He could have just left it in there.
I'm pretty sure HJPEV could precommit to not using the stone himself, in order to use it on others.
Sure, but how would he know to do so? Harry didn't know about that rule in canon. He wouldn't have the impulse to not use the stone on himself unless he knew that wanting to do so would prevent him from getting it.
Nicolas Flamel was born c. 1330. Why use a primary source when you can have a zeroth source?
His testimony and memories would still be considered primary sources by historians. I don't think there is such a thing as a zeroth source. And every source has its limitations -- frankly, a shelf full of memories all relating to a specific event (which, canon, is possible) would be better than the memories of only one person, depending upon the subject in question.
But still. The things that man must have seen ...
It would be interesting, but it would also be taking on a bigger burden.
Changing the events of Harry Potter starting with the first book, is less drastic than changing the history of the Harry Potter world, which is less drastic than changing the history of the real world.
Saying anything that canon didn't say about wizarding history would be changing wizarding history. Doing that in a way that didn't imply changes in muggle history would be very difficult.
Eliezer has already mentioned things like Atlantis. History would probably play a role in finding out how magic works in general. Harry, from a political perspective, would do well to learn how the situation arose, and it may be an opportunity for Eliezer to set up an Aesop.
And it wouldn't necessarily change history. The muggle world as it is in canon is very similar to how it is in the real world, down to things like Playstations, yet Rowling invents a wizarding history that manages to not change much. All of the science Eliezer has mentioned is historically accurate to the year. It's not a stretch to say that the only part about HPMOR that is an alternate universe from canon is wizarding history, because even the existence of a wizarding world in canon didn't manage to change much.
Of course, this would be impossible to discuss in-universe without many-worlds magic. Harry can't find out why the existence of a wizarding world has not changed history if, from his perspective, there was no other "reality" for him to compare it to that he can actually draw evidence from.
However, wizards having their own history means they have their own documentation of that history. This means there are far more primary sources that may have been magically preserved, and muggles could, in the future, use these to learn more about their own history. They might even be able to settle historical debates that have gone on for decades, like what the actual pathogen that devastated Europe during the Black Plague was (since there is significant controversy over whether it was in fact the bubonic plague). Not to mention the existence of things like Pensieves. Magical historians are comparatively spoiled rotten when it comes to primary sources of historical events.
So the implications would be that, instead of changing muggle history, muggles would be more knowledgeable about what actually happened.
I seem to recall there was some playing around with Suzumiya-style Anachronic Order in earlier MoR chapters, but it was pretty self-contained and easy to follow. Plus there's some just downright confusing parts- chapter opening quotes that are never referenced again, Aftermaths that don't seem to have anything to do with the previous chapter, stuff like that.
And there's definitely some real potential for an omake chapter of Bad Ends: Harry accidentally destroying Dumbledore's ability to cast the Patronus Charm, Harry insulting his mother to Snape just a little more, Harry saying the wrong thing to Lucius in King's Cross, Harry realizing aloud to Quirrel what the ritual to summon Death really was...
Harry successfully transfiguring nanotech.
How would successfully transfiguring nanotech be bad, exactly?
I had been assuming that the third-floor corridor was just a way to keep young Gryffindors distracted. Surely even Dumbledore wouldn't be daft enough to entice the Dark Lord into a school. But Quirrell seems to think it's of interest. Confusing...
That brings up another point. In the Philosopher's Stone, Dumbledore enchants Erised so that only those who want to find the stone, but not use it, would be able to have it. If Dumbledore did in fact hide the stone in Hogwarts, I can't see either Harry or Quirrell not wanting to use the stone.
Is it even possible for Dumbledore to hide anything in such a way that Harry can get at it, but Quirrell cannot? Harry's major ideal difference -- his war against death -- isn't even understood by Dumbledore. Not to mention that such a hiding place would have been constructed before Dumbledore even met Harry.
I was just wondering: does anyone else hope Eliezer fleshes out Magical History? I find it a pity that we don't get to see how Magical Britain became what it is now. I mean, so far he's reflected (very broadly) on the current political situation through Draco, but he's continued to keep us in the dark about Voldemort's rise to power, the situation that led to that, the circumstances surrounding the beginning of magic (as a technology, since Harry has confirmed that the rules for spells aren't natural laws), the founding of Hogwarts ...
So, which do you all think are most important for Eliezer to touch upon? Can you think of any others you want to see?
Also: I know that wizards generally ignore muggles, but they are another entire civilization, with documentation of their history, living in secret right next to the Muggle society. Wizarding history could provide a lot of insight into Muggle history because of how the two are so closely related.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
For those of us still in high school, should we put "general" or the major we expect to take in college?