I think a big question here is "what kinds of magic, if any, are available?". Answer might be "none". Partial transfig takes too long, everything else requires motion.
That seems to leave to possibilities:
In other words, no known magic is useful in this situation.
Does that seem reasonable? Does anyone remember a form of magic that doesn't require motion or time?
He learned that he can will his own transfigurations to end wandlessly and without spoken words.
The spell in progress that may kill hundreds of students that the stone can fix — sounds like something transfigured into a gas.
If the snitch is both the trigger and the epicenter of this spell in progress, then this would explain how the three wishes will be granted by "a single plot". The game is played/watched by mostly Slytherin/Ravenclaw students, so mostly Slytherin/Ravenclaw students would die. I can see a school like Hogwarts then giving both these houses the House Cup as a way to deal with the trauma for surviving students and honor the lost children. So that's all three wishes: both houses win the House Cup, and the snitch is removed from Qudditch, all using "a single plot".
(from Iron_Nightingale on r/hpmor)
Snape's head snapped around, as Professor Sprout raised her wand, and the Potions Master managed to raise a wordless translucent ward between them. But the bolt that shot from Professor Sprout's wand was a dark brown that produced a surge of awful apprehension in Harry's mind; and the brown bolt made Severus's shield wink out before they touched, clipping the Potions Master's right arm even as he dodged. Professor Snape gave a muffled shriek and his hand spasmed, dropping his wand.
The next bolt that came from Sprout's wand was a bright red the color of a Stunning Hex, seeming to grow brighter and move faster even as it left her wand, accompanied by another surge of anxiety; and that blew the Potions Master into the door, dropping him motionless to the ground.
I interpret that as Legilimensed Sprout's magic is Voldemort's magic is Sense of Doom magic. But then how was the troll made immune to sunlight, when Harry touched the troll's skin directly?
I agree that legilimensed Sprout's magic is activating the sense of doom. But the troll was not legilimensed, so there's no reason for the sense of doom to activate.
I may be wrong, but intuitively it seems that when Voldemort causes Sprout to cast a spell, that spell counts as originating from Voldemort, not Sprout -- and that is what makes it activate the sense of doom. Whereas the troll was acting on its own accord, and so didn't activate the sense of doom.
I definitely agree LW affiliation will be a major predictor of other results. Perhaps I should have made two sets of predictions (one for LW folks, one for others). - Jacy
Just to be clear, it wouldn't be "LW affiliation"; it would be "heard of EA through LW". I'm sure there are quite a few like me who learned about LW through EA, not the other way around.
While your application correctly identifies Animal Charity Evaluators by its current name, the main EA Summit webpage lists ACE under its old name of "Effective Animal Activism". Is there any chance you could update the page to use the new name?
After comparing my own answers to the clusters Bouget & Chalmers found, I don't appear to fit well in any one of the seven categories.
However, I did find the correlations between philosophical views outlined in section 3.3 of the paper to be fairly predictive of my own views. Nearly everything in Table 4 that I agree with on the left side corresponds to an accurate prediction of what I'd think about the issue on the right side.
Interestingly, not all of these correlations seem like they have an underlying reason why they should logically go together. Does this mean that I've fallen prey to agreeing with the greens over the blues for something other than intellectual reasons?
It's there a universal reason why starving humans are more worthy than blind cats?
EDIT: I'm guessing that the downvoters glossed over the qualifier "universal". Clearly, some people have terminal values which favor cats over humans. The grandparent comment used the term "good" in some apparently absolute sense, hence my question.
Blindness affects cats less negatively than starving affects humans.
Additional ambiguity of "OP": does it refer to the top-level comment or to the article the comment is on? Does anyone have a good way to make this clear when using the term?
I've never seen that as an additional ambiguity. I've always understood "OP" to mean "the original article", and never "the top level comment". But maybe this is because I've just never encountered the other use (or didn't notice when someone meant it to refer to the top level comment).
I tend to agree with you. As I said before, to me RQM to MWI is what "shut up and calculate" is to Copenhagen. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that I am missing some important point Eliezer is making (he tends to make important points, in my experience). For example, in the statement
a description of an objectively existing causal process gives us MWI, hence there is no reason to complicate our epistemology beyond this to try to represent RQM
I do not understand where, in his opinion, RQM adds a complication to (what?) epistemology.
Maybe he's counting the lack of an objective state as additional information?
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
[Survey Taken Thread]
Let's make these comments a reply to this post. That way we continue the tradition, but keep the discussion a bit cleaner.
I have taken the survey.