Well, I note in a comment somewhere, that it would have to be a version of Amelia who was rather ditsy about time.
stcredzero
Karma: 611
It doesn’t preclude scenario B. It just makes it unlikely.
I have a “Many Worlds/QM” style interpretation of time turner mechanics. Basically, all of the possible interpretations of the information+metainformation you have transmitted via time turner “exists” or is in a kind of superposition, until receiving information precludes them. Making Scenario B overwhelmingly unlikely is precluding it.
It’s very possible for to distinguish the two situations. The same probabilistic mechanism that determines the arrow of time precludes scenario B. Also, it’s not really that Dumbledore is actually doing the distinction. It’s more if he could do it.
No, because if she was able to provide that much information as a conscious communication, she will have provided enough information to have affixed her departure at a specific time.
In any case, there’s probably some reason that would make it impossible for her to convey that much information inside 6 hours, anyhow.
I am going to have to accuse you of making a grave Mind Projection
Apparently Black Holes preserve information. There are other connections to physics and information theory, Such as the theoretical computers that can use ever smaller quantities of energy, so long as all of their operations are reversible. Given that, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that there would be an information theoretic component to the rules of magic. My formulation doesn’t require a human mind. If I talk about minds or arbiters, or use language suggesting that then that’s just lazy writing on my part.
I only saw the 91-92 thread and didn’t think it fit there. Other threads that I found were marked as superseded.
All information is probabilistic, Bayesian.
Is there a rigorous argument for this, or is this just a very powerful way of modeling the world?
The problem here is that even if Scenario A and Scenario B are indistinguishable, Amelia’s words still constitute Bayesian evidence on which Dumbledore can update his beliefs.
In my formulation, that’s “side information.” Really, my gedankenexperiment doesn’t work unless Amelia Bones happens to be very ditzy concerning time.
I’m inclined to believe that whatever intelligence is behind capital-T Time is enforcing an intuitive definition of information, in the same way that brooms work off of Aristotelian mechanics.
So then, this is a limitation in the “interface” that the Atlantean engine is following. I think my hypothesis is testable.
I don’t think the path of a single neutrino could do it. Answer this, from the informational POV of Dumbledore’s location in space-time, is path P of that neutrino any less consistent with Scenario A or Scenario B?
This is precisely what I meant when I mentioned the empirical side information detector. The “informational point of view of Dumbledore” is “whatever-it-is that keeps histories consistent,” and the indistinguishability only has to come into play in the local context of whenever Dumbledore uses the time turner. In the way I’ve envisioned it to work, Dumbledore can only use your algorithm to detect leaked information or side-information that was available to him which he might not be aware of.
Your formulation of “indistinguishable” was already invalidated on reddit.com/r/hpmor by a different objection to my hypothesis. When you lie, you leak information. That information just puts the situation into the 6-hour rule. This cuts off the rest of your reasoning below. It also shows how hard the 6-hour rule is to “fool,” which in turn explains why it hasn’t been figured out yet.
EDIT: Rewrote one sentence to put the normal 6-hour rule back.
EDIT: Basically, if all of the information Dumbledore can receive from Amelia Bones could logically come from her departing anywhere between time X and time Y, then the metadata available to Dumbledore is effectively that, “Amelia Bones came from anywhere between time X and time Y.”
In short, the rule is that you cannot convey information more than 6 hours into the information’s relative past, but that does not necessarily mean that you cannot go to a forbidden part of the past after learning it. It merely means that you cannot change your mind about doing so after learning it. Worth noting: if you plan on going to the past, and then receive some information from 6 hours in the future that changes your mind, you have conveyed information to the past. I’m not sure how that is handled, other than that the laws of the universe are structured as to never allow it to happen.
I suspect my actual formulation (not your slight misread of it) and yours come out to much the same.
From Chapter 6:
Harry was examining the wizarding equivalent of a first-aid kit, the Emergency Healing Pack Plus. There were two self-tightening tourniquets. A Stabilisation Potion, which would slow blood loss and prevent shock. A syringe of what looked like liquid fire, which was supposed to drastically slow circulation in a treated area while maintaining oxygenation of the blood for up to three minutes, if you needed to prevent a poison from spreading through the body. White cloth that could be wrapped over a part of the body to temporarily numb pain. Plus any number of other items that Harry totally failed to comprehend, like the “Dementor Exposure Treatment”, which looked and smelled like ordinary chocolate. Or the “Bafflesnaffle Counter”, which looked like a small quivering egg and carried a placard showing how to jam it up someone’s nostril.
From Chapter 89:
“Fuego!” / “Incendio!” Harry heard, but he wasn’t looking, he was reaching for the syringe of glowing orange liquid that was the oxygenating potion, pushing it into Hermione’s neck at what Harry hoped was the carotid artery, to keep her brain alive even if her lungs or heart stopped, so long as her brain stayed intact everything else could be fixed, it had to be possible for magic to fix it, it had to be possible for magic to fix it, it had to be possible for magic to fix it, and Harry pushed the plunger of the syringe all the way down, creating a faint glow beneath the pale skin of her neck. Harry then pushed down on her chest, where her heart should be, hard compressions that he hoped was moving the oxygenated blood around to where it could reach her brain, even if her heart might have stopped beating, he hadn’t actually thought to check her pulse.
The oxygenation potion also slows circulation. Did Harry accidentally kill Hermione? Would the potion have unintentionally prevented blood flow to her brain by retarding flow in her carotid artery, while unhelpfully oxygenating her neck? It makes sense that a potion designed to prevent the spread of poison would prevent movement of the blood. It’s also stated that it works on “a treated area.” If it’s primarily meant to slow the spread of poisons from bites, the spell’s “treated area” might be defined as the volume of flesh a certain distance away from the injection site.
Also, giving CPR to someone when their heart is still beating is definitely not good for them.
Yes, but instead of the mechanism making the beliefs more radical in the context of the whole society, it acts to make beliefs more mainstream. Though, one could argue that a more jingoistic China would be more radical in the analogous larger context.
What the hell is green tech? Is it just more efficient tech? Or does it have less to do with the technology and more to do with economic agents acknowledging externalities, consciously choosing to internalize some of that cost?
I’ll take that as an analogy for what it means to be a moral person. (It’s another way of talking about Kant’s Categorical Imperative.)
A person who is very intelligent will conspicuously signal that ey feels no need to conspicuously signal eir intelligence, by deliberately not holding difficult-to-understand opinions.
What does it mean when people hold difficult to understand moral opinions?
You’re telling us that everyone should party with the million dollars for three days, and then die.
[Citation Needed] Ahem.
No, I’m not saying that. I’m painting the other position in a light so it’s understandable. Your analogy is incomplete. What if they could also donate that million dollars to other research that could increase the life expectancy of 1000 people by 1 year with 90% certainty?
Science is much worse at figuring out what is right because it’s method of determining what is right is “Of all the possible hypotheses, we’ll eliminate the wrong ones and choose the most probably of what exists”.
Someone should write a Sherlock script, where someone uses Sherlock’s principle: “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth,” against him, so that he decisively takes the wrong action.
“Call me when cryonicists actually revive someone,” they say; which, as Mike Li observes, is like saying “I refuse to get into this ambulance; call me when it’s actually at the hospital”.
There was a time when expecting mothers did the rational thing by not going to the maternity ward. http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/washing_hands.htm#History
Resources to be devoted to cryonics and a future lifespan could also be devoted to the lifespan you are fairly sure you have right now. The situation would be more like getting into an ambulance, when there have been no known successful arrivals of ambulance trips and many known failures.
It is important to be rational about charity for the same reason it is important to be rational about Arctic exploration: it requires the same awareness of opportunity costs and the same hard-headed commitment to investigating efficient use of resources
In his Mars Direct talks, Robert Zubrin cited the shoestring budget Amundsen expedition through the Northwest Passage in comparison to around 30 contemporary government funded expeditions with state of the art steam frigates and huge logistics trains. The Amundsen expedition traveled in a cheap little sealing boat and fed themselves largely through rifles and ammunition they brought with them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Mm34Muv6Lsg#t=102s
Conversations seem to occur on several levels simultaneously. There’s a level of literal truth. There are also multiple dimensions of politics. (What I call “micro” and “macro,” in a way analogous to the application to economics.) There’s even a meta-level that consists of just trying to overwhelm people with verbiage.