Really, you should use it to try to discover a more powerful luck potion, then take the more powerful luck potion to try to discover a more powerful luck potion still, until eventually you get a hard-takeoff scenario where ever-more-powerful luck potions are falling from the sky into your hands by pure chance every second.
After the luck-ularity, Harry can just throw a random rock up in the air, and it will hit Lord Voldemort right between the eyes, killing him instantly at the same time the Pioneer probe crashes into an asteroid.
You are assuming that the luck from a luck potion tracks the drinker’s extrapolated volition, rather than just the luck potion’s inventor’s idea of a Nice Thing to Happen.
After all, you would rather not win the Quiddich match, if doing so would lead to your defeated opponent dropping out of art school to go hang out in beer halls.
I guess MOR’s Harry hasn’t realized this yet, but readers of Less Wrong should.
That’s already taken care of; if it’s luckier to discover a luckier luck potion than the Philosopher’s Stone, then that’s what I would discover. And of course, by induction, then subsequent consumption will result in even luckier potions (since luck presumably compounds so any subsequent improvements will still be luckier than a PS’s discovery).
If there is no luckier potion or the Luckularity would hit a plateau, then I would be better off with the PS and hence the luck and preference would line up. So seeking the PS is the dominant strategy.
We’ve seen what happened when Harry tried to invoke Infinite Processing Power spell. It’s plausible to assume, that each hard-takeoff setup will fail spectacularly.
For example, Harry will get enough luck to enter nirvana.
Bad thing? I can’t see the implication. It’s hard to imagine that peaceful mind will still be trying to hack magic even for saving all sentient beings, thus it’s a failure of sorts. Does that failure imply badness? I don’t think so.
Do you want to say that “fail spectacularly” has connotations I’m not aware of? I intended it to mean “fail in unpredictable and confusing way”. I’m still puzzled by your reaction.
Really, you should use it to try to discover a more powerful luck potion, then take the more powerful luck potion to try to discover a more powerful luck potion still, until eventually you get a hard-takeoff scenario where ever-more-powerful luck potions are falling from the sky into your hands by pure chance every second.
After the luck-ularity, Harry can just throw a random rock up in the air, and it will hit Lord Voldemort right between the eyes, killing him instantly at the same time the Pioneer probe crashes into an asteroid.
You are assuming that the luck from a luck potion tracks the drinker’s extrapolated volition, rather than just the luck potion’s inventor’s idea of a Nice Thing to Happen.
After all, you would rather not win the Quiddich match, if doing so would lead to your defeated opponent dropping out of art school to go hang out in beer halls.
I guess MOR’s Harry hasn’t realized this yet, but readers of Less Wrong should.
That’s already taken care of; if it’s luckier to discover a luckier luck potion than the Philosopher’s Stone, then that’s what I would discover. And of course, by induction, then subsequent consumption will result in even luckier potions (since luck presumably compounds so any subsequent improvements will still be luckier than a PS’s discovery).
If there is no luckier potion or the Luckularity would hit a plateau, then I would be better off with the PS and hence the luck and preference would line up. So seeking the PS is the dominant strategy.
We’ve seen what happened when Harry tried to invoke Infinite Processing Power spell. It’s plausible to assume, that each hard-takeoff setup will fail spectacularly.
For example, Harry will get enough luck to enter nirvana.
You say that like becoming a bodhisattva is a bad thing.
‘I vow to save all sentient beings...’
A bodhisattva is someone who deliberately refrains from departing into nirvana, but stays behind in order to save all sentient beings.
A nitpick essential to my joke—having enough luck to enter nirvana is not the same thing as actually entering nirvana.
Bad thing? I can’t see the implication. It’s hard to imagine that peaceful mind will still be trying to hack magic even for saving all sentient beings, thus it’s a failure of sorts. Does that failure imply badness? I don’t think so.
Indeed?
Do you want to say that “fail spectacularly” has connotations I’m not aware of? I intended it to mean “fail in unpredictable and confusing way”. I’m still puzzled by your reaction.
Thanks, I’ve corrected typo.