All of fractalman's Comments + Replies

Something of the real voldemort was leaking through-and the part that was leaking through was, essentially, his gibbering fear of death.

Which really, really won't help in trying to cast a True Patronus.

1Jack_LaSota
Casting a true Patronus is not about the absence of fear of death. It's about "The will to defeat death, not just for yourself but for everyone, through your own strength". The Mirror's desire detection is unfoolable. Which means that the Confundus made Voldemort-Dumbledore actually want to see Dumbledore's family in the afterlife. Voldemort's thought-patterns leaked through, which started unraveling things the Confundus made him believe/want, but before that he did actually believe/want them. If the Confundus can make someone really want that, it can make them really want to defeat death not just for themself but for everyone through their own strength.

Agreed. While Voldemort has 'stated' the reason for not killing harry until now, it still feels...incomplete.

Well.

That happened.

I'm rather hoping (too tired to put numbers on it, sorry) that Harry can summon a phoenix straight from the mirror-he never tested the claim that a phoenix only shows up once, after all...and now he's got the source of phoenixes right next to him. That's a gun that's just itching to fire.

"All your hallows combine" is fairly obvious, though the location of the stone is not entirely clear.

So. you know how Dumbledore thinks that Fred and George are kinda/sorta the heirs of Gryffindor?

I give them 90% odds of at least showing up.

her flesh is what's important-for the revival ritual (IF that's why quirrelmort broke her out, which is quite likely.). she doesn't have a servant of her own to revive her with, so getting her a horcrux would be of no use.

And then quirrel won a bet with dumbledore when it turned out that first-years could cast the patronus.
Fake-moody's statement that he'd get no more than a bloody nose...You woudln't want to try that in the MoR verse. one of the students might be tempted to test it. and if the've been in quirrel's wargames, well...

you get the idea.

cause in MoR, it IS largely practice-based. in cannon rowling left it vague.

2somervta
Additionally, Quirrel states in Roles, Pt 1, that Harry has insufficient raw power for the Killing Curse.
3somervta
Nope! It's stated in MoR that, unlike other advanced spells, the patronus is considered too difficult because of things like precise movements, and the emotional/willpower aspect, not magical strength. Most Charms that could only be learned by older students were like that because they required more strength of magic than any young student could muster. But the Patronus Charm wasn't like that, it wasn't difficult because it needed too much magic, it was difficult because it took more than mere magic.

He thinks draco is much more suited to dealing with the politics, and that it's much less work to optimize draco's morals and hand power to him than to figure out how to navigate a political atmosphere for himself.

To put it crudely, harry plans to use draco as a puppet.

0mjr
But no doubt as a strong puppet ;)

what about from science fiction? star trek: TOS. kirk meets kahn. kahn has been on ice. many other star trek episodes. see also nancy's comment.

Having a futuristic, nonexistent technology which can reliably, reversibly, demonstrably execute suspended animation, is not the same as the realization that mere modern-day liquid nitrogen works to preserve brain state right now and future tech can grab it later.

...a last ditch effort to at least make their deaths quick, while opening up a window to hit the dementors with a point-blank patronus 2.0 without worrying about the guards? Not that I think it very likely, mind you. harry may be broadening his options somewhat, but he has a ways to go before he's quite THAT desperate.

It has occured to me that IF harry does obtain the sorcerer's stone...it's quite likely that quirrel will have been the one to get it out of the mirror, WITHOUT utilizing his leet magical skills.

  1. dumbledore thinks voldemort should find the trap surrounding the sorcerer's stone to be irresistable just for being such a puzzle.
  2. Quirrelmort declares he has never seen such an obvious trap...in a way that suggest that he is quite tempted to go after whatever is inside, whether or not he knows what's inside.
  3. The troll DID happen, even though whether it was
... (read more)
0CAE_Jones
I tried imagining how this might work, including thinking about how the mirror works, and this got me to revise my probability that the mirror would respond well to Quirrell downward. Assuming Quirrelmort and that Harry's Dark Side is a reflection of Voldemort's feelings on death (which are big assumptions, but they seem likely to be correct), I don't think Quirrell would be recognized by the mirror as someone who both wanted the stone but did not want to use it (Voldemort killed people to save himself from death, dark side is terribly afraid of death and is known for using whatever resources it can, etc). (The key question is whether oclumency works on the mirror, but given that canon Dumbledore placed this security mechanism himself, according to him, I think the defense professor would be as uncertain as we are about Oclumency's efficacy.) What following the idea "How to retrieve the stone?" did turn up, though, was a parallel to canon, with Harry's dark side suggesting he "Use the boy." The question is which boy (Neville is the main candidate sticking in my mind, but I'm not sure why; maybe because he's the only boy in Harry's camp that seems likely to wind up in such a situation who might not want to use the stone? Most obvious candidates (Draco, maybe Ron?) seem like they'd have motivation to use it.).

Er, really? every thing i've read in the books indicates that quirrel was NOT a horcrux, but was posessed by the central voldemort who had previously been possessing snakes...or any other animal he could get ahold of.

So it was probably a blunder on her part when she said that quirrel was a horcrux, IF she said that.

He gets it NOW. without having to run a risky feedback scheme between gringots and the muggle economy with only 100 galleons of seed money.

It makes sense enough, if you already believed Harry Potter was voldemort and don't have harry's perspective.

He DID want 7 total fragments. Then he accidentally turned harry into one and didn't realize he'd done so. I can't quit recall if he made nagini before or after the diary got zapped.

Quirrel is not a horcrux. he is possessed by voldemort himself.

Cannon Harry is an Accidental horcrux. Canon voldemort never realized harry was a horcrux BECAUSE he'd never used the incantation to seal the soul fragment within harry.

0Alsadius
This is my point.

that...said...it didn't do them much good whenver they caught a real witch/wizard, they'd just freeze the flames and scream to keep up with the act

One witch deliberately got herself caught repeatedly (14 times?) because she liked the tingling.

Yeah. it's cannon.

well... In cannon, the weaselys have a garden...and you can enlarge food with magic, though rowling never specifies what the multiplicative limit is. (it is STRONGLY implied there is one, though. seventh book.)

So a little bit of gardening by the women goes a long way, though it may only be poor families that actually resort to it.

on the planet earth, of course; abuse space-folding charms to make the rest of the universe fit into a cauldron of arbitrary size.

for those two different spell-elements cannot exist in the same voldemort...? O.o Those two different spell-elements cannot exist in the same fold?

oh. whoops.... so more like a way of poking holes in the strategy "i will do whatever I would have precommitted to do"?

0wedrifid
A way of trying to, yes.

How much do you know about many worlds, anyways? My alternate self very much does exist, the technical term is possibility-cloud which will eventually diverge noticeably but which for now is just barely distinguishable from me.

there you go.

3wedrifid
Vladimir_Nesov!2009 knew more than enough about Many Worlds to know how to exclude it as a consideration. Vladimir_Nesov!2013 probably hasn't forgotten. No. It doesn't exist. Not all uncertainty represents knowledge about quantum events which will have significant macroscopic relevance. Some represents mere ignorance. This ignorance can be about events that are close to deterministic--that means the 'alternate selves' have negligible measure and even less decision theoretic relevance. Other uncertainty represents logical uncertainty. That is, where the alternate selves don't even exist in the trivial irrelevant sense. It was just that the participant didn't know that "2+2=4" yet.
0OccamsTaser
Given that many-worlds is true, yes. Invoking it kind of defeats the purpose of the decision theory problem though, as it is meant as a test of reflective consistency (i.e. you are supposed to assume you prefer $100>$0 in this world regardless of any other worlds).
4wedrifid
No it isn't. Your 'Take 2' is an entirely different question. One that seems to miss the point. The question "Can Omega exploit a vulnerability of human psychology?" isn't a particularly interesting one and becomes even less so when by the definition of Omega and the problem specification the answer is either "Yes" or "I deny the counterfactual" regardless of anything to do with vulnerabilities in human intellectual capabilities.

The trick with eeny-meeny-miney-moe is that it's long enough for us to not consciously and quickly identify whether the saying is odd or even, gives a 0, 1, or 2 on modulo 3, etc, unless we TRY to remember what it produces, or TRY to remember if it's odd or even before pointing it out. Knowing that doing so consciously ruins its capacity, we can turn to memory decay to restore some of the pseudo-random quality. basically, by sufficiently decoupling "point at A" from "choose A" to our internal cognitive algorithms...we change the way w... (read more)

Quantum Coins. seriously. they're easy enough to predict if you accept many worlds.
as for the rest... entertainment? Could be a case of "even though I can predict these humans so well, it's fascinating as to just how many of them two-box no matter how obvious i make it."
It's not impossible-we know that we exist, it is not impossible that some race resembling our own figured out a sufficient solution to the lob problem and became a race of omegas...

Fine, then interchange "assume omega is honest" with, say, "i've played a billiion rounds of one-box two-box with him" ...It should be close enough.

-2bogdanb
I realize this is fighting the problem, but: If I remember playing a billion rounds of the game with Omega, that is pretty strong evidence that I’m a (slightly altered) simulation. An average human takes about a ten million breaths each year... OK, so assume that I’m a transhuman and can actually do something a billion times. But if Omega can simulate me perfectly, why would it actually waste the time to ask you a question, once it simulated you answering it? Let alone do that a billion times... This also seems like evidence that I’m actually simulated. (I notice that in most statements of the problem, the wording is such that it is implied but not clearly stated that the non-simulated version of you is ever involved.)

Omega is assumed to be mildly bored and mildly anthropic. And his asking you for 100$ could always be PART of the simulation.

1bogdanb
Yes, it’s quite reasonable that if it was curious about you it would simulate you and ask the simulation a question. But once it did that, since the simulation was perfect, why would it waste the time to ask the real you? After all, in the time it takes you to understand Omega’s question it could probably simulate you many times over. So I’m starting to think that encountering Omega is actually pretty strong evidence for the fact that you’re simulated.

"become animagus" is a bit more general than "turn into a giant snake". The original evil-overloard rule is about how turning into a snake lets the hero kill you without losing alignment points, which is why it's such a bad idea.

that ISN'T what quirrel does. He uses it to slip into harry's pouch instead and reduce the sense of doom. much smarter than Jafar.

it MIGHT be the glint of silver in chapter 1. maybe. :shrugs:

The other thing is, quirrel...is passed out. remember the azkaban fight? it decreased a bit when quirrel passed out.

it is, at best, rather weak evidence for a truly fundamental change in Quirrelmort's view. enough to tip the scale over the 50% mark? maybe.

His occlumency is not the issue. In MoR, as best as we can tell, there are perfect Occlumens, but not perfect legillimens.

it's the other little clues that get left around that may or may not give him away.

"What does more than one model being correct mean?"

maybe something like string theory? The 5 lesser theories look totally different...and then turn out to tranform into one another when you fiddle with the coupling constant.

4A1987dM
Seeing the words “string” and “fiddle” on top of each other primed me to think of their literal meanings, which I wouldn't otherwise consciously thought of.

hm. I'm still a bit shaky on the definition of modal agent...does the following qualify?

IF(opponentcooperates with me AND I defect is a possible outcome){defect} else{ if (opponent cooperates IFF i cooperate) (cooperate){else defect}

(edit: my comment about perfect unfair bots may have been based on the wrong generalizations from an infinite-case). addendum: if what I've got doesn't qualify as a model agent I'll shut up until I understand enough to inspect the proof directly.

addendum 2: well. alright then I'll shut up.

3Karl
What do you even mean by "is a possible outcome" here? Do you mean that there is no proof in PA of the negation of the proposition? The formula of a modal agent must be fully modalized, which means that all propositions containing references to actions of agents within the formula must be within the scope of a provability operator.

on the first one, according to http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Dementor

After Apparating to Hogsmeade, Harry, Ron, and Hermione set off a Caterwauling Charm and hid under Harry's Invisibility Cloak. Unable to find them, the Death Eaters dispatched Dementors to attack the trio, and Harry was forced to cast his Patronus to protect them from being Kissed.

My original point about patronuses turned out to be more hair-splitting than anything else...but it also turns out that Rowling's take on the partronus totally diverges in lesser-cannon.

"Wonderb

... (read more)

There's two types of mimicbots running around: fixed-rank, and random-reliant.
Which mimicbot are you analyzing?

He has.

Eleizer has: changed the fundamental mechanism for the patronus, made dementors killable with patronus 2.0, edited the magic interactions between Harry and Voldemort to be dangerous to Harry as well as Voldemort, changed how the elder wand works (It's...maybe a +5 wand under normal use, and is only an "infinity+/-1" wand when fed blood sacrifices), and made Harry's invisibility cloak work against dementors-Cannon!Dumbledore (or...someone) warns Harry explicitly that invisibility cloaks do not work against dementors.

1elharo
I'd have to check the bit about Harry's invisibility cloak not working against dementors--I don't recall that from canon but if so that is indeed a change. Do you have a specific cite in canon where the invisibility cloak does not work against dementors? Patronus 2.0 is simply a new spell, not a change to an old one. I don't recall the fundamental mechanism for the Patronus 1.0 charm has changed, but if you have cites from canon and HPMoR to back up this claim, it could prove your point. The magical interactions between Harry and Voldemort are different, I suspect, because HPMoR Voldemort did something different to Harry than canon Voldemort. The elder wand is an extension of canon, not a change. I don't think there's anything in canon that contradicts what HPMoR says about it. I read the blood sacrifices as being an additional source of Grindelwald's power, not something required to power the elder wand. I.e. he had the elder wand and the blood sacrifices. And if I'm wrong about that, I'm still not sure it would contradict canon.

trollDetector-a fundamental part of psychbot-gets both of these to cooperate.

TrollDetector tests opponents against DefectBot. If opponent defects, it cooperates. if opponent cooperates, TrollDetector defects.

So both UnfairBot and Fairbot cooperate with it, though it doesn't do so well against itself or DefectBot.

2Karl
TrollDetector is not a modal agent.

That doesn't even pass a quick inspection test for"can do something different when handed different parameters" .

The original post looks at least as good as: int calculate_the_conclusion(string premises_acceptedbyreader[]) { int result=0; foreach(mypremise in reader's premise){result++;} return result. }

-note the "at least".

Oh, I’msure he gave different weights to different things in his utility function than say…well pretty much anyone other human…but there are plenty of models that show a disaster for any “typical” human utility function. The ones showing disaster: venus and disaster: new ice age…are not exactly rare, though I’m not exactly sure how seriously to take them myself.
"Positive and negative in this day and age is dominated by public opinion"

Relying on Public Opinion is a cheap and dirty variant of Auffman's agreement theorem; it gives plenty of bad res... (read more)

They aren't. but someone else once showed that all the elements were present, except for the usual incantations to set it up. In this view, it's more like an accidentally created ritual.

|Aren't horcruxs supposed to be incredibly costly to create?

I'm afraid you'll need to find MoR evidence for that, not Cannon evidence. Eliezer rearranged a lot of the details on how Dark Magic works-basically, some rituals, but not all, twist your mind as an explicity price, and it's often dangerous, but rarely is it truly Evil in and of itself.) He has been very carefull not to make it obvious what the new price or prices for horcrux creation are-except that it still requires a murder. If he's dropped hints that give more than a +/-5% boost to any particular hypothesis, I haven't noticed them as such.

1elharo
Eliezer has added details of how magic works, but I don't think he's intentionally changed anything from canon.

ok. so: assuming Harry's memory of the night his parents died is correct, what if the crucial difference is that, instead of shrugging Lilly off, Voldemort accepted her bargain...making it a two-person ritual rather than just a one-person ritual...which meant that not only was Harry protected against Voldemort, now the latter had to actively guard Harry's life.

Second part: And as he looked into harry's eyes...he had his equivalent of an "oh crap", and then made harry a horcrux because he figured he may as well. Which THEN sparked a nasty res... (read more)

0tim
Aren't horcruxs supposed to be incredibly costly to create? Like, they use a piece of your soul (or diminish you in a way that has been described as losing a piece of your soul). I don't think Voldemort would shrug and go, "well, I may as well perform an incredibly costly ritual and make this baby into horcrux" on a whim.
1Velorien
If a mere exchange of promises were sufficient to constitute a magically binding ritual, there would be no need for Unbreakable Oaths.

um...that wasn't sarcastic, was it? I just ran low on mental energy so...

anyways, the downside is you have to figure out how to dissolve all or most of the anthropic paradoxes when evaluating simulation chance.

there's another CRUCIAL difference regarding the Newcombs problem: there's always a chance you're in a simulation being run by Omega. I think if you can account for that, it SHOULD patch most decent decision-theories up. I'm willing to be quite flexible in my understanding of which theories get patched up or not.

this has the BIG advantage of NOT requiring non-linear causality in the model-it just gives a flow from simulation->"real"world.

-2Shmi
Yes, reflective consistency tends to make things better.

yeah...but I was more concerned about various TrollBots-including but not limited to HashBot, Randombot, DitherBot, cooperate-IFF you are a defect bot or cooperate bot, antimimicbot...and I considered "cooperates with C-Bot" to be extremely useless as a source of information given the unusual demographics of LessWrong while drawing up my plans.

hm. I've increased my estimate that Harry could further hack into transfiguration, but I still find it very unlikely that he's managed to do so for RingMione. (simply not enough time).
"Even accidents are somewhat intuitive: an extra cat hair in Polyjuice can give you cat attributes instead of blowing up or not working at all."

Even THAT"S rather dangerous in the MoR universe, while in cannon it was mostly funny. And...I think MoR potions don't blow up anywhere near as often as Cannon potions...though maybe that's just because Slytherins and Gryfinndors aren't throwing things into each others cauldron while Snape turns a blind eye. maybe.

edit: hm.

6Kindly
To be fair, blowing up is probably the intended purpose of Cannon Potions.

for reference, here's what I was "planning"-I was all too aware i didn't have time to learn a new language to actually implement it in. a pity i didn't think to post this before the tournament results, even if it's just pseudocode...

run(me,opponent){ //start point notethetime() if(me=opponent){return C} defectbot[]=a list of primitive defectbots with a junk string value added run5times and record results:(run(opponnent, (opponent, defectbot[i]) { if (opponent cooperated sometimes){ if(isooponentclearlymimicbot(ooponent)){cooperate()}else{defect(... (read more)

0Zvi
I find cooperation with cooperation-bot utterly insane in context; I would have predicted less than three, but a good chance of at least one. In the real world problem, or a tournament with a lot of rounds, it's potentially worth saying that since C-bots will die off quickly (although, if enough people cooperate with them, maybe they won't) they're effectively unlikely enough that you can safely use your response to them as signaling for other programs, but if that's true, then your opponent should presumably know that and throw non-trivial cases at you instead.

"Basically we have a very surprising and useful result for a self-reported self-experiment with a sample size of one, that has not been replicated in hundreds of years despite known attempts by known competent, motivated, and resourceful people provided with (allegedly) clear and complete documentation. Nobody even managed to steal either the stone or the elixir it’s supposed to make. (And IIRC, it’s claimed that Flamel needs to use the elixir repeatedly.)"

-well... If it were purely a real-life situation I would agree. but we have priors from...... (read more)

0bogdanb
I’m not even sure what it did in canon. I only mentioned it as a potential example. But note that even if there are no souls in MoR, magic immortality itself is certainly possible. (I.e., if it resurrected in canon, it probably won’t do that in MoR, but it might prolong life.)
Load More