grautry

Karma: 122

grautry 22 Dec 2012 15:00 UTC
14 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 18, chapter 87
Re: Flamel and his open-secret-recipe for the Philosopher’s Stone.

Here’s a quote from chapter 61:

His strongest road to life is the Philosopher’s Stone, which Flamel assures me that not even Voldemort could create on his own

And yet, the recipe is openly available for everyone to see. If anyone could reproduce the stone from the recipe, it would be the very intelligent, rational(and very interested in immortality) Voldemort.

So, how do we reconcile these two facts?

One option is, of course, the published, known recipe is a fake. The stone is real but Flamel lied to everyone about the recipe. That’s certainly a plausible—if boring—explanation of the facts. The other plausible explanation is as Harry says—maybe the stone is a fake. Maybe Flamel is immortal because of Horcruxes and he invented the stone as a way to keep people off the trail of his phylacteries. Maybe Flamel isn’t immortal at all, maybe he pulls of a Batman Begins Ra’s Al Ghul style of immortality. Any of a dozen options is possible.

However, if we take things at face value, I think we can end up with a more interesting conclusion—I think this might be our first piece of evidence(it’s not very good evidence, but evidence nonetheless) that the Interdict of Merlin is an actual, real magical effect, rather than just a cultural thing or a legend. The reason people can’t reproduce the stone is because the Interdict obscures some part of the recipe.

I guess this is testable—do we know if Flamel had any apprentices to whom he tried to personally explain how to make the Stone?

grautry 20 May 2012 16:28 UTC
6 points
in reply to: 75th’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 16, chapter 85
What it reminds me the most of is Harry’s discussion with Hermione about the need for heroic responsibility—about always shouldering the responsibility for any final outcome of events, instead of thinking that your job is done when you, say, go to Professor McGonagall and tell her to do something about it.

My guess(though I wouldn’t assign a very high probability to this) is that it will be uttered by Harry while he’s away from anyone he considers to be sane or responsible(like, say, Quirrell) and he fails to prevent something tragic from happening. A more specific hypothesis: Quirrell’s identity is revealed by him doing something unspeakably evil and Harry blames himself for not piercing the disguise earlier.

grautry 24 Mar 2012 9:20 UTC
0 points
on: The Strangest Thing An AI Could Tell You
Deleted. I just noticed that a similar example has been posted.

grautry 22 Mar 2012 19:05 UTC
18 points
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
I’m curious now...

We know that Obliviation doesn’t erase everything—it erases memories but not every effect of the experience it erases. We’ve even seen it in story—Rianne Felthorne felt sad when looking at her “found” ruby. McGonnagall also hypothesized that Harry might have been abused(or otherwise experienced something awful) and then Obliviated.

Either way, I’m curious how this effect would interact with something like this.

If Harry told you the secret of the True Patronus(and you weren’t the sort of person who could kill Dementors with that knowledge) and you Obliviated yourself, would that be enough to restore the capacity to use an animal Patronus?

grautry 12 Mar 2012 16:02 UTC
9 points
in reply to: DanArmak’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 10
True, using copies to achieve that kind of power doesn’t seem to make much sense—the law even says that you can get as much… let’s call it “work” out of the ingredient as was “invested”. It’s true that there isn’t much of an investment of resources in copies.

So, forget the copies, let’s use the originals.

For example, could you take Einstein’s original notes/notebooks(copying them beforehand, of course, so that you don’t lose information), liquefy them into a Scientific Breakthrough Potion and use that Potion to quickly figure another brilliant breakthrough? That’s the kind of thing I’m wondering about.

grautry 12 Mar 2012 14:16 UTC
25 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 10
Ch 78 You know, of all the things in the chapter, the law of Potion-Making seems the most important, by far—if I understand it correctly, it has staggering implications.

It’s clear that you can extract more than purely physical processes from ingredients—since we have potions that bestow even entirely abstract concepts like luck(and canon!Snape claimed to be capable of brewing fame and glory, I’m unsure if MoR!Snape claimed the same).

So, could you, say, take a CD with some software on it and use it as a Potions ingredient in order to extract the mental work that went into programming that software, creating a Potion of Excellent Programming or something? Or, even better—could you take a copy of some brilliant scientific research paper, extract the brilliant scientific genius out of it and use the resulting Potion in order to create an even more brilliant scientific breakthrough? That’s godhood in one shot right there.

I also have to wonder how Potion-Making interacts with the Mind Projection Fallacy. If you use a video game as an ingredient, can you create a Potion of Fun out of the video game or no? Fun isn’t an inherent property of video games, it’s in the minds of the players.

grautry 9 Jan 2011 0:32 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Luminosity (Twilight Fanfic) Discussion Thread 3

So I don’t know how much use it’d be for anyone else.

Well, maybe you’re doing a sort of inverse of generalizing from one example in that you assume that your process wouldn’t be of use to anyone else, when in fact, it might be useful? :-)

Your Seven Shiny Stories are also very specific examples that theoretically apply to that one person only but can serve to highlight more general principles.

Going for the meta article with “this is how you find those techniques” with an example added of “this is how I found this” might be the best though, similarly to how the Sequence/Seven Shiny Stories work now.

grautry 8 Jan 2011 22:28 UTC
0 points
in reply to: alethiophile’s comment on: Luminosity (Twilight Fanfic) Discussion Thread 3
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a fanfic that updated with this kind of regularity or speed.

Incidentally, Alicorn, I think that might be an interesting thing to add to your Luminosity sequence. Maybe make Seven Shiny Stories into Eight Shiny Stories(or add something like Ureshiku Naritai) and elaborate—based on your own example—how do you force yourself to write more, how you caught that without a schedule/that sensation of “somebody would notice” you don’t update regularly and so on. I think it might serve as an interesting example of dealing with akrasia, just like Ureshiku Naritai serves as an interesting example of dealing with depression.

grautry 5 Jan 2011 23:02 UTC
1 point
in reply to: alethiophile’s comment on: Luminosity (Twilight Fanfic) Discussion Thread 3
That’s an interesting possibility.

Though, I think there’s an easier approach.

In the case of passwords or PIN numbers or whatever, she could probably look into the future and see the password used by an authorized user of whatever-it-is-that-she’s-trying-to-break(eventually, someone’s going to use it).

This is vastly less universal(she can’t solve problems unless someone already knows the answer), but far easier. She could, for example, try to see who’s going to use the ATM next, overlook the PIN and then decide to steal that person’s wallet.

On the other hand, I’m not sure how that interacts with her ability. If she, say, decided to look into the future for the next PIN, wouldn’t that influence the future so that no one enters the PIN at all(since she’s going to steal the wallet of the next person)? Or, would she see herself entering the correct PIN(which would be an extremely interesting possibility)?

grautry 4 Jan 2011 20:17 UTC
2 points
in reply to: RobinZ’s comment on: Luminosity (Twilight Fanfic) Discussion Thread 3
Though, didn’t Addy say that Elspeth still thinks of her power as touch-based even after she is capable of range?

Maybe she needs to think of her power as ranged on a more instinctual, subconscious level before she begins broadcasting her dreams as she sleeps.

grautry 18 Dec 2010 9:54 UTC
1 point
in reply to: alethiophile’s comment on: Luminosity (Twilight fanfic) Part 2 Discussion Thread

Why?

Maybe she’s just exhausted and that’s how it manifests itself?

grautry 16 Dec 2010 8:47 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Luminosity (Twilight fanfic) Part 2 Discussion Thread
Assuming that the answer is the same as in Twilight Canon, here’s why this works(if you have not read the books and do not want to spoil yourself, do not decipher, obviously):

Va Gjvyvtug Pnaba, Ryfcrgu(be engure, Erarfzrr be jungrire gur cbxrzba vf pnyyrq) cbffrff na ‘vairefr’ cbjre gb ure cneragf. Vr. juvyr Rqjneq pna ernq zvaqf, fur pna fraq gubhtugf. Naq juvyr Oryyn vf fuvryqrq, fur pna crargengr fuvryqf.

grautry 28 Nov 2010 18:23 UTC
3 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 6

Were I involved in the decision-making, and assuming the Dementors are not just indestructible but also unimprisonable, unteleportable-to-the-surface-of-Jupiter, and so forth

They seem to be un-imprisonable, as far as I see. They can drain magic and decay matter. So that covers.… everything. Eventually, they’d get out of any ward or prison you’d devise for them.

Remember that Harry’s hypothesis of Dementors having no structure but what the wizards involved think of them is untested at best. So they might take revenge if they were suddenly faced with wizards trying to get rid of them.

Even if they do not have any such structure, wizards who started teleporting Dementors to Jupiter would probably think that the Dementors would take revenge on them, and so they would. They’re, after all, capable of breeding and barring Dementor-detecting magic(which I suppose is possible) it’s fairly unlikely that you’ll get all of them.

And yes, it’s a bad solution, unless you think that threatening scientists with killing random people unless they invent a cure for cancer is a good idea.

grautry 28 Nov 2010 16:15 UTC
8 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 6
Chapter 62.

Well, that was interesting.

I’m wondering whether the general opinion of Harry as dark is going to change as a result of a freaking phoenix following him around.

Incidentally, I’ve honestly got mixed feelings about this issue. Dumbledore is completely correct in his “it’s not that simple” sentiment but Dementors are evil.

I’m actually wondering whether Wizards in general agree with Azkaban torture or if they just feel that Dementors have to be dealt with somehow. Since everyone ‘knows’ they’re invulnerable, they decided to deal with them by assigning them the role of prison wardens. There’s not much else that you can do against an enemy that cannot die except to reach some sort of an agreement with them. In the end, it’s probably better if they prey on prisoners then on everyone else. It’s monstrous, yes, but does anyone here honestly have a better solution, if you accept the premise that Dementors are indestructible?

If that’s the case then Harry keeping his uber-Patronus secret might actually be detrimental to his cause of ridding the world of Dementors.

grautry 30 Oct 2010 10:33 UTC
12 points
on: Luminosity (Twilight fanfic) Part 2 Discussion Thread
Well, with the story over, I’ve just got to say—I’m massively impressed.

It actually encouraged me to read your sequence(far more than MoR) simply because of how insanely productive you were. Eliezer has an exceptional update schedule, but you’re like a machine. Post-singularity.

What surprised me the most was, perhaps, that the story forced me to take sparkly vampires seriously. Previously, I had an instinctive /facepalm reaction to them, whereas now I’ve got to admit, that a more skilled writer than Meyer can certainly make it work.

All in all, there’s only two things left to say: Thumbs Up and I Need My Luminosity Fix Plx!!!111oneoenoe

grautry 25 Oct 2010 2:21 UTC
5 points
on: Luminosity (Twilight fanfic) discussion thread
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn.

I certainly wasn’t expecting that. Still, I’d like to congratulate you on actually going through with it, most people wouldn’t have the guts to do something this big.

Anyway, is my interpretation—that Luminosity!Bella’s shield also has some sort of an enhanced-immortality power—correct? If so, that would be an interesting turn of events.

grautry 7 Oct 2010 7:34 UTC
18 points
in reply to: NihilCredo’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 3
Well then, I’d be happy to correct you.

It’s fairly common writing advice that you should do your best not to use any other verb than ‘said’ to carry on a conversation.

To put it simply, most people simply ignore the repetitive nature of ‘he said’, ‘she said’. Therefore, conversation flows fairly smoothly and naturally. Constantly injecting synonyms for ‘he said’, ‘she said’ is a sign of a new writer.

Naturally this doesn’t mean “never ever use anything else besides ‘said’ to mark the dialogue”. However, the alternatives should be used only in places where they fit exceptionally well and not just for variety’s sake.

Disclaimer: This should not be taken as a definitive opinion on the subject since there are writers out there who will agree with you. I’d say, however, that the consensus is on the side of “use said as much as possible”.