matheist

• matheistMay 13, 2012, 1:17 AM

  7 points

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

  Ng gigebcrf, rl fnlf, “V gubhtug crbcyr jrer tbvat gb trg “gur cybg” sebz Pu. 1-3, cbffvoyl Pu. 1, naq guvf jnf gur Vyyhfvba bs Genafcnerapl”, naq yngre “Ru, lbh’yy frr jung V’z gnyxvat nobhg nsgre lbh ernq gur svany nep naq gura ernq Puncgre 1 ntnva.”

  What would a hypothesis about the end of the story look like which uses only information from chapter 1?

  Claim: Harry’s war with Voldemort will destroy the world. Support: In Chapter 1, Petunia says about Lily’s reasons for not making her pretty, “And Lily would tell me no, and make up the most ridiculous excuses, like the world would end if she were nice to her sister, or a centaur told her not to …” Suppose Lily really did say those things, and believed them, and that there was the force of a prophecy behind them. If Lily hadn’t made Petunia pretty, Petunia would not have married Michael Verres, and Harry would not have grown up with science and math and sci-fi (and the attendant humanism) and rationality. A much weaker Harry would have attended Hogwarts, and fought Voldemort, and presumably would have lost. The world would survive, albeit under Voldemort’s thumb.

  As a result of Petunia being made pretty, Harry grew up around books that made him strong, strong enough to pose a credible challenge to Voldemort. If they’re evenly matched, and fight to the death, then they take the world down with them.

  ---

  This feels consistent with the events in the story so far, but it doesn’t really seem that the story is driving towards this conclusion. Except most recently, with the ominous feelings from the various seers following (caused by? who knows) Harry’s ominous resolution in chapter 85.

  But it’s all I’ve got for a prediction that’s consistent with the events thus far and is foreshadowed in chapter 1.

• matheistMay 9, 2012, 10:38 PM

  3 points

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

  If I were Quirrell, and I wanted Hermione out of Hogwarts, and Dumbledore has warded her against magic, and I failed to convince her to leave, what would I try next?

  I would identify those people who have the most influence over her, and attempt to convince them to convince her to leave. Who have we seen to have influence over her? By “influence”, I mean that she respects them or might for some reason listen to them. Harry, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Flitwick, Mandy, her parents.

  Quirrell likely won’t be able to (or won’t attempt to) talk Dumbledore, McGonagall, or Flitwick into persuading Hermione to leave. He can put pressure on Harry. Putting pressure on Mandy (either with mind magic or just psychology) might also be effective. Some interrogation techniques involve prolonged deprivation followed by small kindnesses. If everyone hates Hermione, a single friendly face could persuade her to do what she otherwise might not.

  He could arrange for Hermione’s parents to learn of the events. As McGonagall points out in ch 84, and as Hermione later thinks to herself during her chat with Quirrell, “Mum would want her to RUN AWAY and her father would have a heart attack if he even knew she was being faced with the question.”

  What other avenues does Quirrell have, besides persuasion? “Hostile magic” and a “spirit [touching]” her would be detected. Can he slip her a potion? Attack her physically? Use non-hostile magic, whatever that might be? Convince her to hex herself? Use hostile magic on someone else force them to attack her physically?

• matheistMar 26, 2012, 3:27 AM

  20 points

  in reply to: gRR’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  We, the readers, know directly about lots of evil things Quirrell has done (e.g. kill Skeeter, break Bellatrix out of prison). We have also used this knowledge to guess at nefarious motives in other, less obvious, cases: like guessing that he was trying to dement Harry, or guessing that he is Hat&Cloak, or guessing that he is constantly manipulating Harry for his own ends.

  Dumbledore has access to none of this knowledge. To Dumbledore, Quirrell is an exceptional teacher of Battle Magic who has the interests of the students at heart. He does not appear to take part in politics, with the exception of his pro-unification speech after the battle in the lake.

  Dumbledore thinks that Voldemort is “less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost.” The ancient tales he found speak of “wizards possessed, doing mad deeds, claiming the names of Dark Lords thought defeated.”

  The two pictures don’t fit together — Quirrell is not doing mad deeds nor claiming the name of the Dark Lord. It’s true that Dumbledore knows Tom Riddle was exceptionally brilliant, but I don’t think it’s idiotic of him to not guess that maybe the old tales of past dark lords only told of the stupid ones, and that Riddle’s style of possession would be different.

• matheistMar 24, 2012, 12:46 AM

  16 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  Lucius is a slytherin, and not stupid. What if he really does believe Hermione is a pawn? The question remains — whose pawn?

  Lucius might believe Hermione is Dumbledore’s pawn.

  Lucius already believes D killed his wife, and so he would have no trouble believing Dumbledore is targeting his son. In fact, it would be to Dumbledore’s advantage (so might think Lucius) to target Draco in such a way that D can avoid taking the blame. If D wanted to impose political costs on Lucius, one way he might do it is to have someone utterly beyond suspicion be found to have attacked Draco. Then Lucius would have to use up political capital to punish an innocent little girl.

  If Lucius thinks this way, it would explain his willingness to punish Hermione to the extreme — she’s Dumbledore’s pawn, and so he’s going to take her away in order to impose costs on Dumbledore. For Dumbledore to speak up for Hermione would reinforce the belief that she belongs to D.

  What do we make of Harry Potter’s comments, and Lucius’s reaction to them, in this light (given that Lucius thinks Harry is the dark lord)? His “unheard sentences” would likely be along the lines of “No shit, sherlock!”, followed by, “why is the dark lord pretending to be stupid.”

  The funny thing is, Quirrell’s testimony of someone with a motive to harm Draco is spot on: Dumbledore attacks Draco in order to impose costs on Lucius.

  … are we really so sure Dumbledore didn’t set the whole thing up?

  EDIT: I think Quirrell set it up— but I also think there’s a good chance that Quirrell didn’t just set it up to make it look like Hermione attacked Draco, but rather set it up to make it look like Dumbledore set it up to make it look like Hermione attacked Draco.

• matheistMar 20, 2012, 3:41 AM

  5 points

  in reply to: 75th’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  I also read a theory somewhere (can’t remember where) that if, in canon, Voldemort had killed Harry in the graveyard as intended, he and his crew could use the portkey’s return trip in order to wreak havoc upon Hogwarts; they can’t just apparate in, and all the ministry officials would be trapped there for them to slaughter, without escape routes.

• matheistMar 19, 2012, 7:15 PM

  3 points

  in reply to: Eneasz’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  This part is never explicitly stated, but I assume they alert Rita to Quirrell and manufacture some silly rumors about him being a former Death Eater and training Harry to be the Next Dark Lord.

  I agree — though it’s hard to tell because chapter 25 is written out of order. But a week passes between when Harry asks the twins for a plot and the lunch with Quirrell when Harry reads the paper: Act 2 is stated as happening on Sunday; directly afterwards, in act 3, Harry talks with Draco and borrows 40 galleons, and sometime afterwards, probably directly after, in Act 4, Harry asks the twins for a plot, and the twins also discuss pranking Quirrell. In Act 5, the twins ask Flume for help, and show him an article in “yesterday’s edition of the Daily Prophet”, titled “THE NEXT DARK LORD?”. In Act 6, Quirrell quotes that title when he confronts Skeeter; he also mentions he has no dark mark, which is one of the elements of the twins’ discussion in act 4.

  So at some point in the week between Act 4 (either Sunday or soon after) and Mary’s room (Saturday), the twins convince Skeeter of certain things about Quirrell. The Prophet publishes the Quirrell article. At some point early the next morning, the twins ask Flume for help with Harry’s article. At some point after that, and before Saturday, Quirrell confronts Skeeter on the street.

  In summary, there’s almost a week of lost time in chapter 25, which makes it a little difficult to see that the twins were behind Skeeter’s article on Quirrell, but there are enough hints in there to make it a sure thing.

• matheistMar 19, 2012, 6:58 PM

  5 points

  in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  I read this as meaning that Dumbledore’s order that Snape stop reading minds is just to mollify Harry. Dumbledore reads students’ minds (I argue here that Dumbledore reads the Weasley twins’ minds), and hence doesn’t actually care whether Snape does the same.

  Harry, of course, has no way of checking that Snape is following this order, so it’s safe for Dumbledore to cross his fingers under the table, so to speak.

• matheistMar 19, 2012, 5:06 AM

  5 points

  in reply to: TomM’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  It wasn’t Snape’s choice to humiliate Hermione publicly — that was Dumbledore’s decision, making use of Snape’s “evil potions master” persona. Note that none of the other professors speak up, except for Quirrell, who is a temporary hire and need not follow Dumbledore’s direction. Minerva doesn’t even show up, presumably so that she doesn’t have to sit and keep her mouth shut.

  Dumbledore explains to Harry in chapter 77 that Hermione had to be seen to lose publicly in order to de-escalate the conflict with Slytherin. Dumbledore doesn’t actually know that Snape was involved in escalating the conflict.

  I’m still not sure why Snape wanted to escalate conflict between the bullies and SPHEW, but regardless, we can’t look at his humiliation of Hermione as any evidence of his motives, because it’s not actually his move.

• matheistMar 18, 2012, 9:46 PM

  8 points

  in reply to: Xachariah’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  Actually, I think the Slytherin students reasoned rationally yet happened not to get the right answer.

  Slytherin thinks that Snape can get away with being horrible because he’s blackmailing Dumbledore, that Harry found out how Snape is blackmailing D, and that D now has to try to please both of them.

  In actuality, Snape is horrible at Dumbledore’s direction, in order that everyone think Snape is blackmailing him, when actually Snape is really on Dumbledore’s side (chapter 77). (Or at least D thinks so, based on love-for-Lily.) But Dumbledore really does have to keep Harry happy to some extent, so he directs Snape to be horrible to only half the students. Then D can maintain the fiction that Snape is blackmailing him, and can pretend that Harry is now blackmailing him too by finding out the same secret Snape has.

  D plays along with Harry’s guess that he wants an evil potions master, so that he doesn’t have to tell Harry that Snape is secretly on his side.

• matheistMar 18, 2012, 2:31 AM

  7 points

  in reply to: see’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  Ch 76 - “I have had two mentors, over the course of my days. Both were extraordinarily perceptive, and neither one ever told me the things I wasn’t seeing. It’s clear enough why the first said nothing, but the second...” Snape’s face tightened. “I suppose I would have to be naive, to ask why he stayed silent.”

  I’ve actually wondered which mentor is which, in Snape’s telling: my guess is that the first one is Voldemort, and that Snape thinks it’s “clear enough” that Voldemort didn’t tell him Lily was shallow because he either didn’t know or didn’t care. The second one is Dumbledore, who didn’t tell him Lily was shallow because Snape was only useful to him as long as he still loved her. And Snape would have to be naive to ask why Dumbledore stayed silent, when it’s obvious that speaking up could only weaken Snape’s loyalty.

• matheistMar 17, 2012, 3:06 AM

  9 points

  in reply to: NihilCredo’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 10

  Harry leaps to that conclusion before hearing from Dumbledore how difficult they are to create. Even if that was the method, there is still the question of how they managed to accomplish it.

  My hypothesis — as of several chapters ago — is that Dumbledore assisted in the Rita prank. He certainly had the motive, since he’s playing the game against Lucius and Rita was Lucius’s pawn. He also had the means (being incredibly powerful). Why hadn’t he acted against her earlier? Because he hadn’t been clever enough to think up a good way to get at her without inviting retaliation.

  So how did he ever get included in the twins’ plan?

  Easy: he’s in the habit of routinely reading their mind. Evidence for this lies in chapter 63: “It wasn’t that the Headmaster had popped up out of nowhere and was staring at them with a stern expression. Dumbledore was always doing that.” There’s also weak evidence in chapter 12, where Dumbledore knows Harry wants to reformulate Quidditch (he could know via F&G via Ron). And in chapter 79, where he knows about the map.

  So: The twins are walking around thinking about how to implement their plan against Rita, Dumbledore pops up out of nowhere looking for some good gossip, sees their plans, seizes the opportunity. The exact implementation could either be a memory charm (maybe trap her when she shows up at Mary’s room looking for gossip about Amelia Bones, Dumbledore’s ally), or else Dumbledore could actually pull off the acts Quirrell calls impossible.

  What links here?

  • matheist's comment on Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11 by Oscar_Cunningham (Mar 19, 2012, 6:58 PM; 5 points)

• matheistFeb 23, 2012, 5:18 AM

  7 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  Just reread chapter 40.

  “Which is why the Resurrection Stone is not the most valuable magical artifact in the world,” said Harry.

  “Precisely,” said Professor Quirrell, “though I wouldn’t say no to a chance to try it.” There was a dry, thin smile on his lips; and something colder, more distant, in his eyes. “You spoke to Dumbledore of that as well, I take it.”

  Sounds to me like Quirrell had never heard of the resurrection stone before this conversation. Later in the chapter, it becomes apparent that he has never heard of the deathly hallows symbol. After Harry shows him the symbol, he excuses himself and cuts short the outing. Perhaps he has seen the stone before and is running off to find it? His ignorance fits with canon, where he uses the Peverell ring (with the stone inset) to make a horcrux.

• matheistFeb 18, 2012, 11:54 PM

  9 points

  in reply to: Joshua Hobbes’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  He talks to Quirrell later about not making the obvious suggestion in front of Dumbledore, and goes on to say:

  “If you happen to see a stone with that symbol,” said Harry, “and it does talk to the afterlife, do let me know. I have a few questions for Merlin or anyone who was around in Atlantis.” (Ch. 40)

  What links here?

  • Anubhav's comment on Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9 by Oscar_Cunningham (Mar 6, 2012, 2:27 AM; 1 point)
  • Anubhav's comment on Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9 by Oscar_Cunningham (Mar 6, 2012, 2:26 AM; 0 points)

• matheistFeb 18, 2012, 11:01 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: Joshua Hobbes’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  He could ask Salazar Slytherin where the chamber of secrets was, perhaps.

• matheistFeb 16, 2012, 3:59 AM

  3 points

  in reply to: Joshua Hobbes’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  cough

  Unless H&C needs to figure out (through legilimancy) who else Zabini might have told about his existence, so that he can go and obliviate them too.

• matheistJan 24, 2012, 5:07 AM

  3 points

  in reply to: TomM’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  Nice. I like your explanation much better than mine. Keeping in mind that Lucius knows very little at this point about what Harry is like — and that Harry is only eleven! — I guess it’s reasonable for Lucius to assume that such an observation by a fellow student of Draco’s would require some adult tutelage.

• matheistJan 23, 2012, 6:27 AM

  2 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  I don’t understand Draco’s exchange with Lucius at the end of Chapter 7. Anyone know what’s going on?

  Here are my thoughts, which of course may easily be completely wrong.

  Facts: 1) Harry states, “So during the Incident at the Potions Shop, while Professor McGonagall was busy talking to the shopkeeper and trying to get everything under control, I grabbed one of the customers and asked them about Lucius.”

  2) Harry states, “So you really are his one weak point. Huh.”

  3) Draco’s letter to his father asks about Harry’s “weak point” comment, Lucius’s reply reads, “I would say that you had been so fortunate as to meet someone who enjoys the intimate confidence of our friend and valuable ally, Severus Snape.”

  --

  Conclusions:

  • The wording of Harry’s statement in fact 2 suggests that Harry’s source put him on to the “weak point” assertion. The “so you really are” bit sounds like a hypothesis that has just been confirmed.

  • A bit of a reach: Harry’s source in the potions shop was Severus Snape, and Snape is allied with Lucius. If the first conclusion is true, then this would explain the speed of Lucius’s response to Draco. That is, Snape tells Harry about Lucius, including that Draco is his only weak point, and then reports the conversation to Lucius; when Draco reports the “weak point” comment, Lucius understands that Harry has spoken to Draco.

  • Snape is the potions teacher and hence might reasonably be found in the potions store.

  --

  This is not very satisfying to me because Harry doesn’t later recognize Snape as being someone he has seen before, and his appearance is quite distinctive to Harry. Polyjuice seems like a stretch.

• matheistJan 12, 2012, 1:10 AM

  9 points

  in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  I hope that doesn’t turn out to be the reason for the conversation to have happened — it’s a little unsatisfying. I guess another reason for H&C to need to talk to Zabini could be in order to use legilimancy on him. Presumably, in this case, to discover whether Zabini told anyone else besides his mother about H&C.

  Edit: On reflection, this seems quite likely to me. H&C turns the conversation to betrayal, and if the plan is to use legilimancy on Zabini, then Zabini would need to be thinking about betrayals (and whether he has betrayed H&C) in order for the legilimancy to be useful.

• matheistJan 8, 2012, 2:08 AM

  7 points

  on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2012)

  I discovered this community through HP:MoR; I joined the discussion because there was a comment about the work which I wished to make. I’ve started reading the articles as well and am enjoying doing so.

  Looking forward to all the shiny ideas!

• matheistJan 7, 2012, 12:43 AM

  15 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  Re Chp 35

  I searched all the threads, and didn’t find any mention of this. There’s a hint in the conversation between Hat&Cloak and Zabini: namely, the fact that there is a conversation at all. Why does H&C need to talk to Zabini if he’s just going to obliviate him anyway? Here’s one possible answer: he needs some information from Zabini.

  I don’t think he needs Zabini’s report on the conversation — partly because he keeps talking afterwards, and partly because there are independent reasons to think that H&C is either Quirrel or an agent of Quirrel’s. (For instance, the “keyed into the wards” comment, as well as the fact that H&C exactly predicts Quirrel’s reaction to Zabini’s statement, and the fact that this statement ended up benefiting Quirrel.)

  So what information does H&C need? Note that he tells Zabini, “The reward I promised you is already on its way to your mother, by owl.” In other words, Zabini was clever enough to insist that his reward go to a third party, leaving someone around to remember that he’s owed an award in case he’s obliviated. H&C seems to me to be turning the conversation at every step towards Zabini’s mother. Eventually, he receives the information that Zabini doesn’t know how his mother persuaded her last suitor to marry her.

  It’s unclear why this information would satisfy H&C, but it does seem that he needs to take care of Zabini’s mother in some way (obliviate her, probably), and that he’s trying to figure out how difficult this will be. This seems reminiscent of Quirrel’s later behavior towards Auror Bahry — he tries to figure out exactly what Bahry knows and what the other aurors expect so that he can appropriately memory-charm him.

  Any thoughts on the matter?

  What links here?

  • matheist's comment on Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9 by Oscar_Cunningham (Feb 16, 2012, 3:59 AM; 3 points)