anotherblackhat

• anotherblackhatApr 21, 2012, 3:37 AM

  19 points

  in reply to: anotherblackhat’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 16, chap­ter 85

  So after thinking about it some more, I came up with a possible rationale/​rationalization why a wizard’s death might be needed.

  Assume the “script kiddy magic” theory is right—A powerful wizard can be bind complex magic into a simple to execute script, with a key phrase (and/​or emotion or gesture). Thus it wasn’t some perverse law of the universe that decided “Wingardium Leviosa” is how levitation is activated, but some perverse ancient wizard.

  A Horcrux stores an image of you, and the activation sequence is bound to the death of a wizard. It was meant to be an emergency backup script, activated on the death of the wizard. I.e. the ancient who created it was thinking that when a wizard dies, they would automatically be backed up into a Horcrux. This explains where ghosts come from, and why the ghosts we know of were all wizards. Later, someone figured out how to activate the script without dying. Unfortunately, the method they discovered involved killing another wizard.

  A backup is limited by the hardware that runs it, so ghosts, which can only barely be said to run, don’t seem like real people. They have limited ability to form new memories, so they seem more like chatbots than people (in the MoR universe). A Horcrux is even more limited unless it can get near a brain, but has some “upload” magic associated which means it can possess people under the right circumstances. Harry could be a Horcrux, in the sense that he might contain a backup image of Voldemort, but it can’t (normally) run for much the same reason Voldemort can’t cast a spell on Harry. That’s why the hat didn’t sense it.

• anotherblackhatApr 20, 2012, 6:30 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: 75th’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 16, chap­ter 85

  It certainly looks like Harry is a horcrux in this universe, and Harry already thought of that possibility in different terms, yet the Sorting Hat says with 100% confidence that there is no extra “mind, intelligence, memory, personality, or feelings” in Harry’s head.

  I would add that in Cannon, Harry is a horcrux, which adds a fair amount of weight to the idea.

  Some possibilities for why the hat would make the statement;

  • Harry’s scar isn’t a horcrux.

  • A horcrux is nothing like a ghost, mind, intelligence, memory, personality, or feelings.

  • The sorting hat was wrong, or lying.

  • Something about Harry-the-horcrux prevents detection by sorting hats. For example, it can’t be active (and therefore the hat can’t detect it) unless Harry is in dark side mode.

  • Something about Volemort’s horcrux is different than the hat expects. For example, an occlumens can hide from detection.

  While I like the idea that the horcrux is only active when Harry is in dark-side mode, I can’t see any reason to favor that theory.

• anotherblackhatApr 20, 2012, 3:24 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: Bugmaster’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 16, chap­ter 85

  In Cannon you had to split your soul, which according to Slughorn required an act of evil. The supreme act of evil—murder.

  If Slughorn is right, then no, a willing sacrifice wouldn’t do it.

  He implies though, that it’s not the external consequence of the act that counts, so much as the internal soul wrenching aspects. For some, it might be enough to strangle a puppy. And as you progressed in evil, murder most foul might not be sufficient to tear at your soul. When you’ve killed four, it’s easy to make it five.

• anotherblackhatApr 19, 2012, 11:35 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: How can we get more and bet­ter LW con­trar­i­ans?

  I’d much rather get a reply than a vote.
  But presumably there’s a reason for the current system rather than the arguably simpler method of not having up/​down buttons.

• anotherblackhatApr 19, 2012, 8:56 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: How can we get more and bet­ter LW con­trar­i­ans?

  The idea is to make it possible to say (by voting) “even though I think you’re wrong, I’d like to hear more”. The problem IMO with the current system is that the people who vote “I think that’s wrong” drown out the people who vote “I think that’s interesting”. It may be that isn’t supposed to happen, but that seems to be what does happen. Would a “rhymes” button make sense? Sure—if you wanted to encourage rhyming posts. The GP wants to encourage contrarians and skeptics, so “like/​dislike” and “agree/​disagree” seemed appropriate. I haven’t seen many of them on LW, but on other boards I really wish there was a “WTF? didn’t understand your post” button, as I would press that one quite a bit. What buttons are best is a subject unto itself, but probably not worth discussing unless the basic concept is possible and worthwhile.

• anotherblackhatApr 19, 2012, 7:01 PM

  4 points

  on: How can we get more and bet­ter LW con­trar­i­ans?

  I think the kind of people you’re looking for are rare in general, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that they are rare on LW.

  That said, there’s room for improvement. The karma system only allows for one kind of vote. It could be more like Slashdot and allow for tagging of the vote, or better yet allow for up/​down voting in several different categories. If a comment is IMO well worded, clear, logical, and dead wrong, then it’s probably worth reading, but not worth believing. Right now all I can do is vote it up or down. I’d like to be able to vote for clarity and against content at the same time. And as long as I’m wishing, I’d also like to be able to vote just to vote, so we can have user generated polls without needing a karma dump. And humor—that deserves it’s own category. Better feedback, better results. Or at least, so I believe, never having had better feedback.

• anotherblackhatApr 19, 2012, 6:01 PM

  4 points

  in reply to: kilobug’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 16, chap­ter 85

  The only cannon example is Voldemort who mangled his soul six or seven times. A single Horcrux might be less destructive. Also, we may be confusing cause and effect. But then we also have no examples of a Horcurx actually extending life—Voldemort’s was cut short despite making several.

  I would also like to point out that it’s possible to value diversity. The utility of a single point of view for 200 years may not be as great as two points of view for 90.

• anotherblackhatApr 19, 2012, 2:41 PM

  4 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 16, chap­ter 85

  Tom Riddle: “And how exactly does one split his soul?”
  Slughorn: “Well, you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature.”
  Tom Riddle: “But how do you do it?”
  Slughorn: “By an act of evil—the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: he would encase the torn portion—”

  MoR!Horcrux might be different, but it seems likely that killing a willing victim isn’t good enough, it has to be murder most foul. If a MoR!Horcrux is different, and only requires a death, then why assume a human death is required?

• anotherblackhatApr 18, 2012, 10:04 PM

  4 points

  in reply to: beoShaffer’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 16, chap­ter 85

  Dumbledore doesn’t come right out and say it, but it’s there in Chapter 77;

  “In other words,” the boy said, as though talking to himself without any other people in the room, “it’s already known how to keep powerful Dark Wizards in prison, without using Dementors. People know they know that.”

• anotherblackhatApr 18, 2012, 4:33 AM

  7 points

  in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 15, chap­ter 84

  Lupin was brought in as a special instructor for the Patronus charm, thus might possibly have professor status.

• anotherblackhatApr 18, 2012, 3:54 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: Joshua Hobbes’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 15, chap­ter 84

  The evidence against QQ is pretty strong;

  • H&C cast a memory charm on Hermione without triggering the wards.

  Only a Hogwarts professor, Dumbledore, and maybe Lupin could do that.

  • H&C either wanted Hermione to be blamed for attempted murder, or wanted her to succeed.

  That rules out everyone is isn’t willing to kill innocent children to advance their plots. Realistically, only QQ fits.

  Whether Harry has enough information to figure it out is a different question.

• anotherblackhatApr 12, 2012, 2:56 AM

  27 points

  in reply to: Eneasz’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 15, chap­ter 84

  I’m worried I may be turning Bad.

  You need not trouble yourself. Examining Quirrell’s actions has merely made you realize how much you would like to have his power. “Bad” is just a label applied by those too weak to seize that power.

  Do not fear the dark side—we have cookies!

• anotherblackhatApr 5, 2012, 5:02 AM

  −3 points

  in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 14, chap­ter 82

  So, you think he’s not SC but wanted McGonagall and Snape to think he was? In that case, why carefully evade the question rather than just lie?

  Some people believe actions carry more moral weight than consequences. To such a person, a lie of omission is a lesser crime than a bald faced one. They might, for example, respond “only a fool would say yea or nay” rather than actually answering a question, or quote some obscure piece of text and hope that you drew the wrong conclusion from it.

• anotherblackhatMar 29, 2012, 2:33 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: Alsadius’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  I don’t see fiat as something the wizarding economy can jump straight to. First they have to be sold on the idea that money is a medium of exchange, and that the ability to exchange it is it’s primary value.

  Representational money doesn’t have to be mono-metallic, it could represent a basket of metals, or a basket of any commodities for that matter.

• anotherblackhatMar 29, 2012, 3:38 AM

  4 points

  in reply to: Xachariah’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  Certainly, the planning fallacy applies. And even if, for example, arbitrage worked the way it seems, and without the extra pitfalls that have been mentioned, there’s a lot more to it than just swapping silver for gold and back. Harry’s 11, he can’t leave Hogwarts, his finances are tightly controlled by Dumbledore, 100,000 galleons = 1.7 million sickles ~= 17 tonnes of silver. Your dad doesn’t just slip that into his back pocket. You’re going to need help lifting it, security to guard it, vehicles to move it...

  On the other hand, Harry has a lot of resources that haven’t even been mentioned yet. There’s a house in Godricks hollow for example, and the Granger’s would probably be willing to contribute.

  He hasn’t even really made an accurate count of his vault. He described the stacks as a rough pyramid, but then estimates they’re 20 wide and 60 tall—so in other words, each step of the pyramid is only three coins high. I made a small model out of poker chips, and it looks more like a flat than a stack. If it were a normal author, I’d figure the description was bad and the “estimate” was spot on, but EY is smart enough to realize that estimates aren’t that accurate. Harry might have underestimated and already have 100,000. Of course, he might have over estimated instead.

  Maybe he should learn a magical counting spell.

• anotherblackhatMar 29, 2012, 3:10 AM

  9 points

  in reply to: ajuc’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  Doing something stupid, or just being an idiot in general isn’t the same as holding the idiot ball.

  the person carrying the idiot ball is often acting out of character, misunderstanding something that could be cleared up by asking a single reasonable question or performing a simple problem-solving action, but that he isn’t doing solely because the writers don’t want him to. It’s almost as if the character is being willfully stupid or obtuse.

• anotherblackhatMar 29, 2012, 1:01 AM

  10 points

  in reply to: Xachariah’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  Mostly—fail.

  For a detailed explanation, I recommend “The Big Problem of Small Change”—Thomas J. Sargent, François R. Velde published in 2002 isbn 0-691-02932-6

  A common strategy was to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. It didn’t—see Gresham’s law

  • bad money drives out good. Another strategy was to debase the more valuable coins (make them of less pure metals), which has approximately the same effect.

  All of which leads to “economic hardships” on the poor, which sounds a lot nicer than “the poor died in droves.”

  It seems strange, but the idea of a representational currency, coins that you can officially exchange for a fixed amount of gold, is actually a relatively recent invention. Not to be confused with fiat money—coins that you can’t officially exchange for anything.

  Edit: Did you mean “how did countries set the exchange rate in the old days?” If so, then typically the government reserved the right to mint coins, and the exchange rate was set by law.

• anotherblackhatMar 28, 2012, 9:10 PM

  5 points

  in reply to: Anubhav’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  He also didn’t get Hermione pregnant.

• anotherblackhatMar 28, 2012, 6:49 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: bogdanb’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  My thinking was more mundane; gold foam with a solid shell. But yeah, seems like there’s a lot of possible sources of error in the size/​weight of a Galleon magic or no. Still, given the volatility of the Muggle marketplace and the isolation of the wizarding world in general, it seems likely that some arbitrage opportunities exist.

  Not that I should care about the destruction of a fictional economy, but I much prefer the idea that arbitrage is only, say, 10%, and Harry decides to strike a long term business relationship with the goblins rather than taking an adversarial position and crashing the market in a big way. He could even introduce the idea of representational currency, which ought to be worth quite a bit to the goblins.

• anotherblackhatMar 28, 2012, 6:22 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: mjr’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  Read it? Probably.

  Understand it despite the Interdict of Merlin? Not so sure.