You’re right, she should have listed them as she did. But she still needed to have told them privately beforehand.
TobyBartels
On the contrary, tthe odds are increasing, since we’re running out of opportunity for this deduction from the text to be contradicted. (^_^)
An upvote!
Just to be clear, the Reddit thread didn’t say that you can fit 48 hours in a day, it just didn’t say that you couldn’t. And it probably had that Dumbledore quotation too, it’s just me saying that we can’t know for sure what that quote means.
Yeah, the general comments were fine, but the list of names? A Muggle would have known better.
I don’t know what’s on /r/hpmor, you’d probably have to ask there. On Less Wrong, people discussed both of the last two in the comments on Chapter 113.
One justification that I’ve heard is that a child has a longer life ahead of them. Kill a child, and you’re removing 60 years of life and happiness from the future; kill an old adult, and you’re removing 10 years. Another justification is innocence; although you specified that the adult is innocent, matching the innocence of a child is a tall order for an adult to reach, at least if you think of guilt as a cumulative effect.
I’m trying to answer ‘Why do people think […]’, not ‘Why is it true that […]’, which you didn’t ask.
I imagine that Harry can tell her the truth in a few years, after they’ve saved the world, and she’s learnt more, and there’s just more distance from the event. But I don’t know if she’ll be fooled that long, or conversely if Harry will ever be willing to tell her. I’m more inclined to think that the Vow might prevent him from telling her, if he’s worried that she won’t be able to offer him good advice afterwards.
Sorry, I forgot to answer you about PBR. I agree with Matt Leifer’s analysis. Briefly: it’s a fine theorem, and it’s good that they proved it, but it shouldn’t surprise anybody, and it doesn’t rule out any of the interpretations that people actually advocate.
As for my interpretation, I don’t have any problems with Caves, Fuchs, and Schack’s comprehensive 2001 paper on the subject (this is not their first 2001 paper, which was more about a technical result and vaguer on the interpretation). This paper writes extensively about states of knowledge. But since then, Fuchs has criticized that phrasing as insufficiently Bayesian (by which he really means insufficiently subjectivist). Quantum States: What the Hell Are They? at his website covers this, although it’s hard to read. As you can see from the dates, he had these thoughts pretty early on. Anyway, if the original 2001 papers define the orthodoxy for the Bayesian interpretation, then I am an orthodox quantum Bayesian, and Fuchs is the heretic.
Knowledge of what? Fuchs says knowledge of (or beliefs about, etc) the conesequences of one’s interventions in a system; one can also say (which may be same thing) knowledge of the outcomes of further measurements. I would use more realist language: knowledge of the physical observables. If you try to build an ontological model in which each observable has an associated actual value and the results of measurements are determined by these values, then you’ll have a hard time with that; but that’s not what I want to do. An observable O does not (necessarily) have an actual value, but it has potential values (comprising its spectrum), and I have knowledge about O that can be summarized as a probability distribution over these potential values.
Nitpick: That’s not the Chamber of Secrets.
Perenelle’s surname is also Flamel. (You could use a portmanteau for Perenelle/Nicolas.)
I see what you mean. They get the Quidditch Cup outright (which is what I meant), but they share the House Cup, which is still having it (and that’s what you meant).
Thanks, but that’s not actually definitive. Somewhere on Reddit is a list of information about time turners, and while this was quoted there, nothing else suggested that you couldn’t go back 6 hours, wait 12 hours, then go back 6 hours with a new time turner.
But there was a clear statement by Eliezer that you couldn’t go back 6 hours, wait only 6 hours, and then go back again. This imposes a hard limit of 48 hours per day.
Well, I’m more agreeable than average, while LessWrongers are less agreeable; while LWers are about as neurotic as most people, I am less. OTOH, LWers are less extraverted and conscientious than average, and I am if anything more extreme. (We’re all average at openness.)
Not Quirrell, but Flamel, over 600 years.
That won’t look good.
Ah, is that what shminux meant!
One of this comment’s third cousins says that Monroe was a Slytherin.
The Quidditch Cup, but not the House Cup.
This isn’t true in my experience. The death of a 20-year-old is grieved as untimely, while the death of a 70-year-old is often accepted as the natural order; 50 falls in between (still untimely but not the same level of tragedy as at 20). If it’s murder, then you get more sympathy with age for being defenceless; you can see that that is the reason, because it doesn’t apply to natural death.
People talk about the value of the elderly for the same reason that they talk about the value of female STEM majors and racially diverse neighbourhoods: to overcome society’s ingrained prejudice in the reverse. (It is irrelevant to this phenomenon whether people believe what they say, or even if the prejudice is justified; such comments are still a reaction.)