All of moritz's Comments + Replies

moritz50

Did you notice that from Quirrel's perspective, that's exactly what he has done to/with Harry? Killing Hermione had the effect of hardening Harry's resolve, and removing some of his scrupels. For Quirrel that's "stronger".

3NancyLebovitz
And not just obvious current scruples. Hermione is an external scruple-generator for Harry.
moritz00

Have her make a horcrux by killing another human? it's pretty clear both canon and MoR that killing somebody is necessary to make a horcrux.

I don't think that's compatible with moral of any of the people that want Hermione to live.

1JoshuaZ
I outlined elsewhere how she could use Time Turners so that she never killed anyone other than another copy of herself.
moritz10

It's quite clear that whoever introduced the troll to Hogwarts wanted Hermione killed, otherwise her broomstick wouldn't have been tampered with.

moritz10

I think you're reading too much into small details.

It could very well be that McGonagall doesn't like phoenix travel, or (more likely) that Dumbledore focused on bringing Harry and Hermione into the safety of Hogwarts as quickly as possible, while McGonagall has lower risk and is also able to defend herself.

Fawkes can only transport three people at a time

Somehow that also seems unlikely to me. Phoenixes are displayed as very powerful, both in MoR and canon. Their actions are more limited by their narrow goals and maybe limits of their intelligence than by limits of their magic.

1Sheaman3773
I think you're not reading enough into small details. I'm not saying that your ideas are not possible. I'm saying, what would be the point of it? Wouldn't it have been easier just to write: "Harry caught fire and went out and blazed up somewhere else; and just like that he, McGonagall, and the Headmaster, and the unconscious form of Hermione Granger held in the Headmaster’s arms, were occupying another place; with Fawkes above them all." ? I think it would have been easier. So why wouldn't he have written that, if it won't be relevant?
moritz00

I dimly recall that in canon, Squibs are actually the children of two wizards. That contradicts Harry's finding directly.

But then Rowling probably didn't have any rules in mind about how magic inherits, so it might be impossible to come up with a good theory that explains everything we know from canon.

1[anonymous]
Here's a new one.
2Eugine_Nier
I had always assumed squibs are caused by point mutations.
4anotherblackhat
If Harry's theory is right, squibs can't be normal genetic descendants (mutation not withstanding) of wizards, but adultery is a very real, very common thing. Cannon does not rule out the possibility, though given that the books were meant to be accessible to children it's not surprising that Rowling doesn't go into detail on the matter.
moritz40

One thing I'm missing from this whole horcrux discussion is: What happens if you die of age, and have a horcrux?

People just seem to assume that once you have a horcrux, you won't wither and die.

But we have no indication to believe this is what actually happens. canon!Voldemort catches a rebounding killing curse, and the horcrux doesn't make him live on in perfect health. Instead he is very close to death, has no body, and needs to possess animals or other humans to extort some influence.

So what happens if you have a horcrux, and come close to dying from ol... (read more)

moritz50

but the Hogwarts map couldn't find him when asked to find Tom Riddle, his true name.

Note that Quirrel was at the Ministry for Magic for interrogation while Dumbledore used the map to search for Riddle.

moritz30

Yes. That and the fact the book is resistent to rough handling. Though of course if I were a magical archaeologist, I'd also find some spell that makes those valuable artefacts as indestructible as possible.

5pedanterrific
That isn't a Horcrux, from Word of EY.
0chaosmosis
Why do we think that this is a Horcrux? Just canonical similarities?
moritz10

In canon it's definitively done.

But how?

I'm pretty sure that both canon and MoR are silent on how it's done, which is a real pity.

In canon there is a scene where Voldemort breaks into Nurmengard to ask Grindelwald where the Wand is, and then kills him. In a non-magical world I'd say that the fact that somebody can break in means that somebody can break out too, with help from the outside. Even if that's not the case in a magical world, it means that his followers could continue to communicate with him. Not good.

On the other hand there seems to be magic in ... (read more)

4kilobug
There is the issue of wands. Wandless magic is, at least for humans, much less powerful than wand magic. So it's perfectly conceivable to me to have obstacles that are virtually impossible to overpower if you're wandless, but possible to overpower if you're a wand and are a good wizard (which Voldemort surely is). The "his followers could continue to communicate with him" is indeed a real problem. But it seems (both in canon and in MOR) Azkaban itself is not so hard to break from the outside, only (almost) impossible to escape from inside.
moritz50

Or maybe they simply wanted a child? That can happen at that age, even if it's not all that common in our societies.

-1Alsadius
Yes, but you generally don't do the deed somewhere you can get caught if you're actually a serious couple of that sort.
1faul_sname
True. It's not like having a child at that age will prevent them from going to college or have any particularly negative effects in the HPMORverse. Edit: I accidentally a word there. Edit 2: And then I the put word in the wrong place.
moritz50

There are only thirty hours in a day and every child means greater demands on your time.

Which is much less of an issue if your own parents and grandparents (and maybe even another generation) are around to dote on your children.

6loserthree
Except they'd also be around to dote on your nieces and nephews (who are also their grandchildren) and the children of your first cousins (since those children would be their great-grandchildren just as much as your own children would be). In fact, because they're subject to multipliers as they go further up the family tree, they have even less time for each child. This does not make any stronger argument against desiring sex without conception, not does it weaken my "only thirty hours in a day" argument for sex without conception.
moritz20

Maybe using magic doesn't strengthens your magic the way that physical exercise strengthens your muscles, but rather similar to a river carving its way through the landscape -- the more water flows, the deeper the river bed becomes.

Such a mechanism wouldn't require any more genetic information, because it's not a property of the individual magic user.

moritz10

There could be multiple factors that govern the strength of wizardry. For example the base could be a trained component like muscle strength, but the total observable strength also depends on your ability to control it. If you have very fine control over the magic (ie very precise wand movements, nearly perfect self control for spells that require it), you can make your magic flow much more efficiently. A bit like pulling a lever into the exactly correct direction, or a bit in the wrong direction -- it'll still work, but requires more strength.

7bogdanb
If it worked like that, there’s still the question of “what component?” Muscles becoming stronger as a result of exercising them is a complex behavior, governed by many genes. Harry’s reasoning towards one “magic marker gene” suggests that is not the case. I can think of all sorts of possible explanations, I just can’t see one that looks really reasonable; since we have no actual explanation about how stuff works, you need a lot of assumptions for anything and stuff tends to be arbitrary. If you think about it, all substances being combinations of four elements, or Lamarckian inheritance, are plausible explanations if your only observations are on the level of “some stuff burns” and “water quenches fire” or “children kinda look like parents”. (“Inventing” new charms is mentioned several times, but there are basically no details about how that works. Harry just changes how to apply a couple of existing charms, and he seems to have figured out how he might pick ingredients for potions, but even there he’s not told where the gestures and ritual come from.)
moritz-20

A good question.

Maybe "magic" is what gives you a free will, ie the explanation of how a will can exist with a certain measure of independence from the neurons. So all consciousness requires a small amount of magic, and only wizards and magical creatures have the ability to further manipulate that mysterious magic.

And if a wizard exhausts his magic, he becomes unconsciousness until his magic recovers, because the mind can't work without the basic .

If magic is a prerequisite for conciousness, it would also explain the correlation between intelligence and strong wizardry.

2ArisKatsaris
That would send a message quite contrary to lots of what LessWrong is about; so it'd be highly unlikely for Eliezer to have something like that in HPMoR. Besides you are confusing at least three different concepts -- (a) "free will" in the sense of being active agents who make our decisions based on our own inner drives, (b) "consciousness" in the sense of being qualia-possessing self-reflective entities, and (c) "consciousness" in the sense of being mobile and receiving significant input about your physical surroundings (i.e. not sleeping or passed out). When sleeping, people can be conscious in the (b) sense (as they can dream), but they're unconscious in the (c) sense.
moritz00

Ok, this is quite old stuff, and maybe it has been discussed already, but I couldn't find it,. Chapter 25:

And by similar logic: The words a wizard spoke, the wand movements, those weren't complicated enough of themselves to build up the spell effects from scratch - not the way that the three billion base pairs of human DNA actually were complicated enough to build a human body from scratch, not the way that computer programs took up thousands of bytes of data.

So the words and wand movements were just triggers, levers pulled on some hidden and more comple

... (read more)
8alex_zag_al
Hatred may not be the only way to cast Avada Kedavra, just as the happy memories are not the only way to cast the Patronus Charm, and Oogely Boogely doesn't need to be pronounced correctly if you don't care whether your bats glow. Maybe he'll discover a True Killing Curse.
2ArisKatsaris
I think that's Harry's point about Wingardium Leviosa. That it doesn't make sense for people many thousands of years earlier (as far back as Atlantis) to have created a spell that looks like a Latin-English mangling. That's why the immediately following sentence to the passage you quoted is: So basically he had made a hypothesis (preprogrammed program-instruction by the people of Atlantis), but his theory seemed to collapse on this bit, that the language didn't fit.
1pedanterrific
Here's a question: how does excessive magic use cause unconsciousness? What's going on there, physically?
moritz00

Thanks for writing that, I enjoyed it.

There's a tiny problem with it: Patronuses speak with the voice of the one who cast them, and the members of the Wizengamot have already heard Harry talking, so they'd notice there's something wrong with the Merlin connection.

1jimrandomh
This may be pushing the limits of Harry's control over his Patronus, but humans can speak in funny voices even without magic, and doing so to prevent characters from recognizing who they are is a standard trope. This deserves mention, though, so I'll edit to include one.
moritz140

Maybe this is the wrong place to ask, but are there any other cool pieces of "edufiction" like HPMoR? I mean fiction where you can learn about science, economics or other topics just by reading the story, and thinking along with it.

There is lots of historic fiction material, so I'd like to exclude that genre from my question.

3Bugmaster
Terry Pratchett's Maurice and his Educated Rodents (as well as his other books) is educational, though probably not about science.
0Alejandro1
Neal Stephenson's books often have lots to learn from, e.g. cryptography in Cryptonomicon or economics in The Baroque Cycle (though the latter is historical fiction).
9Alsadius
They're not books, I know, but sometimes videogames can be surprisingly educational, especially in fields like economics where it works the same in game and in reality. If you ever want a crash course in all things economic, become a trader in Eve Online.
5kilobug
I would say Voltaire's philosophical tales (Zadig, Candid) apply to that qualification, even if they are more written in order to defend a particular pov than about educating in general. Hard science-fiction could also qualify, it often contains some valid bits of science. But it's hard to tell the limit between the author's imagination and the real science. Anyway, I second the question, it would be interesting to have more of those.
moritz-40

Quirrel doesn't have his wand, in Chapter 79 it says "despite the fact that Mr. Quirrell had politely surrendered his wand upon being detained for interrogation,"

Update: oops, accidentally replied to the wrong comment. Never mind.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
0[anonymous]
... Did you even read what I quoted?
moritz180

For purely selfish reasons I hope it's in the "first 80% done, second 80% being worked on" sense.

wedrifid170

For purely selfish reasons I hope it's in the "first 80% done, second 80% being worked on" sense.

For purely selfish reasons I'm ambivalent. I like fanfiction as much as the next guy but kind of wouldn't mind it if Eliezer spent his efforts trying to save the world. ;)

moritz20

Maybe one of the charms protects against time-traveling in and out of the room?

moritz50

I have a theory. In canon, the fact that Harry's mother died for him produced some kind of magical protection. Harry had to live with his relatives during the summer to keep that protection alive.

Maybe in HPMoR, Dumbledore speculates that Harry can keep that protection in place by carrying a part of Harry's old home (the rock) with him.

moritz40

I thought his response to blackmail of his allies was to burn Narcissa Malfoy (or at least have everybody thinking that he burned her alive).

2pedanterrific
That would be the alternative, yes.
moritz50

Potions is not the only thing that's neglected in canon; Transfiguration is also "just" taught but never used (except by the teachers). I love it that Harry!MoR puts Transfiguration to good use; after all it seems to be the most general magic manipulation.

It feels a bit as if canon and MoR aren't the same fiction subgenre. Canon is about a boy growing up, about action and an isolated society that still parallels the muggle society in many ways. MoR is more about discovering the magical world and about complicated plotting.

-4MatthewBaker
All I got from this is HarryMoRt*
2Celer
I never viewed them as really belonging in the same genre. Canon is character focused adolesence tale, MoR is plot focused epic fantasy.
moritz30

Right. And Lucius calls Snape his "valuable ally", so it's likely that Snape has done the dirty work for Lucius inside Hogwarts.

2Alsadius
Or Snape is just a good double agent.
moritz40

If I understood correctly, Harry didn't invent a new potion, he found it one of the books that Flitwick recommended. And if you assume that Draco still has Snape's support, it won't be easy for Harry to find more powerful potions than Draco.

It also seems clear that the teachers involved think that inventing new potions is far too dangerous with Harry's current level of experience (which is basically none). That's why I don't think that more potions will be the way to Chaos' success. At least not the critical factor.

moritz10

So, what kind of "miracle" will Harry produce for the next battle (assuming for a moment that Hermione is going to be released, and there will be a next battle)?

I thought that maybe he finds a way to learn wordless magic, thus having a huge advantage since the others don't know what spells will be coming. But then I realized that it's not even necessary -- in the heat of the battle it's enough not to shout the incantation, whispering it will mean that the opponent can't hear it.

It's a simple enough thing that I wonder why none of Harry, Hermione, and Draco seem to consider it.

At least I haven't found any indication that shouting the words of a spell make it more powerful.

4LucasSloan
It seems to me that potion making is still a clear advantage that Harry has over his rivals - they aren't going to discover the principal at the heart of potion making. At the moment, trying to invest additional effort in making more useful sorts of potions and or hiding the preparations better seems to be the easiest marginal increase in chaos' power.
1Joshua Hobbes
That's quite a good idea, but not enough for Harry to win when outnumbered. I'm not so sure he really needs a new idea at the moment, it might be simply continue inventing potions with non-magical ingredients (Could you make the other team lose the will to fight with a potion made from tears?). Of course, he'll probably have an epiphany on a completely different subject none the less.
moritz10

There are certainly some analytical charms that give you some sort of idea how magical objects work. For example where Harry offers Dumbledore and Quirrel some Comed Tea, they both analyze it before drinking.

The complexity of such analytics probably scales withe complexity of the magical object that is being analyzed, so finding out about the dial was probably immensely difficult, but not by collecting and correlating data, but by inspecting the device rather closely.

4pedanterrific
Not that I disagree, precisely, but I'm not sure you can use the Comed-Tea thing as evidence that it's possible to analyze how magical objects work: Quirrell and Dumbledore both seemed taken by surprise by the actual effect, after all. The charm(s) they used seem more likely to be poison/biologically-interactive-potion detectors. Or maybe they both decided to fake being caught off guard. That seems like Dumbledore's style, anyway.
moritz00

In my understanding, the wards serve mostly two purposes: prevent harm from the outside (by mostly isolating Hogwarts magically from the outside), and analytical wards that inform the school authorities if something really bad happens.

So if you want to murder someone inside of Hogwards, you face the problem that the murder is immediately detected, and then you're sealed off from the outside -- the chances of escaping aren't very high.

You are right that the wards don't seem to prevent any accidents, but it seems that most "school magic" doesn't go horribly wrong without prior warnings. For example in potions, people seem to know which potions are dangerous, and those are only done under supervision.

moritz140

Blocking the Unblockable Curse.

This is mostly related to canon, but also a bit to HPMoR.

I've always wondered why the killing curse counts as "unblockable". In "Order of the Phoenix", Dumbledore blocks it by moving a statue in its path. Seems to work nicely. There is other evidence that solids stop the killing curse -- if it went through it, you could accidentally kill somebody behind a wall when missing your target. Prof. Moody would surely have mentioned that danger when talking about the killing curse, if that was the case. So you cou... (read more)

6Zaine
I'm pretty sure that 'unblockable' is meant to mean it was the only magic known to have no counter-effect, or counter-spell. Now Harry has discovered the true Patronus charm is the counter spell to Avada Kedavra. It makes sense when you think about it, which I'm sure is why Eliezer included it in the first place. The Dementors are voids of nothingness, into such nothingness tumble all living things once their life is extinguished (according to present evidence, anyway); in other words, the Dementors are parts of Death, but are not Death Incarnate (which can be summoned according to a Dark Ritual Quirrell read tell of as a spritely young lad). Thus, if the Patronus charm has the ability to repel a piece of Death, then in accordance with magic's apparent system of dualities, the Patronus charm must represent the opposite of Death: Life. All but Harry cast their Patronus using memories, figments of the mind based upon reality; because they only conjure a thought reminiscent of all life can be, they can only manifest a fragment of life force to shield themselves from Death - an imperfect shield, permeable to Death. Harry recognizes the two poles of reality: Death, or absence - and Life, or presence. Harry brings to mind all that reality really is to us, namely all that a life can ever possibly experience, and pushes that in the face of the part of Death that is Dementors.* Harry has this ability because he strives to and greatly succeeds in deceiving himself of nothing (he's not perfect - yet); through rationality he is able to have an accurate enough map of the territory that his conjured thought actually is a picture of all life can be, and so he can manifest the entirety of his Homo sapiens sapiens being. His Patronus not only represents but is pure life force, so it can overwhelm and obliterate imperfect representations of Death id est Dementors. Likewise, as both Dementors and animal Patronuses are imperfect representations of their respective pole, their effects
1thomblake
You need to remember how wizards think. If the killing curse can't be blocked by spells, then it simply can't be blocked. They mean that if you use it in a duel, it doesn't matter what sort of shield spell your opponent has up, it won't work, and so the spell isn't very sporting and therefore is unforgivable.
0wuthefwasthat
Harry's patronus also blocks a killing curse, in Azkaban (in HPMoR)
2AspiringKnitter
That's ridiculous. It's ridiculous that the curse would be considered unblockable under those circumstances and ridiculous that I didn't think of that already. And yet... it seems you're right. In fact, now I think it would make sense for wizards to use shields in duels.
moritz00

I guess that too frequent obliviation damages or wears out the mind, and iirc there are several hints that it can be quite cathastrophic if an obliviation goes wrong.

So there probably wouln't be large scale psychologic experiments based on obliviation.

0Solvent
That's a good point. Maybe not "large scale", but some scale.
moritz10

There seems to be a slight contradiction.

On the one hand, Harry and Hermione find out that one needs to know what a spell does in order to cast ist successfully (Ch 22, "If you didn’t tell her at all what the spell was supposed to do, it would stop working.").

And then in 26, about the 6th years Griffindor (canon!Harry) who hexes canon!Draco: "He is in his sixth year at Hogwarts and he cast a high-level Dark curse without knowing what it did.”

Shouln't that be impossible? Or if the knowledge from Harry and Hermione's experiment wasn't very general, Harry should have noted at least. (Though honestly I didn't notice during my first read, being amused about the reference to canon).

Atelos150

The next line after "If you didn't tell her at all what the spell was supposed to do, it would stop working." says

If she knew in very vague terms what the spell was supposed to do, or she was only partially wrong, then the spell would work as originally described in the book, not the way she'd been told it should.

Knowing that the spell is 'For enemies' apparently counts as knowing in very vague terms what it will do.

moritz100

There seem to be two forms of leglimency, one that requires an explicit spell and a wand, and can be performed by most wizards. That's what Mr. Best in MoR uses, and what canon!Snape uses while trying to each Harry Occlumency. The victim knows what's going on, but usually can't do anything against it.

The second one is the form that Dumbledore (and canon!Voldemort), which just requires looking into the eyes of the victim, and lots of training. This is the "stealth mode", and most victims don't notice the intrusion at all.

It was always my intuitive... (read more)

5Nornagest
If I remember right, a moderately big deal is made of wandless magic in the last couple books of the canon. I don't think it's come up in MoR yet, but it seems simpler to suppose that Dumbledore and canon!Voldemort are performing a wandless version of Snape's Legilimency than to assume a more fundamental difference between the types.
4Sheaman3773
Rather than two forms of legilimency, I thought it was a matter of the caster's facility with the spell. In other words, it was my understanding that amateur Legilimens had to use their wand and the incantation in addition to eye contact, and with practice they could do away with the wand and word. That branch of magic is easily made wandless, perhaps.