Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality

[BabylonHoruv]

I'm reading it.  It reads like Harry Potter, starring Spock, to me.  Fun stuff though.

[Kai]

I'm reading it.  It reads like Harry Potter, starring Spock, to me.  Fun stuff though.

Except Spock was highly irrational.

[BabylonHoruv]

The more I read this the more I am struck by it's brilliance.  It is, for me, a part of my personal Discordian Canon.

[BabylonHoruv]

I did find a logical fallacy however.  The theory of magical genetics that Harry and Draco work out doesn't work.  It explains muggleborns but it does not explain squibs.  If magic is a simple Mendelian recessive trait than any two wizards have to have a wizard child, they can't have a squib as a child.

[Jasper]

Yeah, to use D&D terms, this is Lawful Evil versus Chaotic Neutral or Good, depending on your exact interpretation.

Harry is certainly a "chaos, fuck yeah!" kinda guy though, no doubts about it.

I'd say CN, given he wants to optimize reality for his own benefit and generally has been selfish about any altruism.

Maybe in some ways, but Eliezer has done a good job of portraying a character who has morals, idealism, guilt, and empathy who is also human enough to act like a little shit when it's appropriate.  I'd say despite his lapses in sentimentalism, he's overall a "good" character.  It's just that DnD alignments tend to be used with simple, 2D characters whose whole purpose is sweet loot.

[Pope Lecherous]

I did find a logical fallacy however.  The theory of magical genetics that Harry and Draco work out doesn't work.  It explains muggleborns but it does not explain squibs.  If magic is a simple Mendelian recessive trait than any two wizards have to have a wizard child, they can't have a squib as a child.

think wizard; Ww or WW

squib ww

sence?

squibs are basically muggles in effect, with an awareness of magic.  may be attributed to other factors

[Jasper]

It works.

[BabylonHoruv]

I did find a logical fallacy however.  The theory of magical genetics that Harry and Draco work out doesn't work.  It explains muggleborns but it does not explain squibs.  If magic is a simple Mendelian recessive trait than any two wizards have to have a wizard child, they can't have a squib as a child.

think wizard; Ww or WW

squib ww

sence?

squibs are basically muggles in effect, with an awareness of magic.  may be attributed to other factors

That would make muggle borns impossible. 

[Requia ☣]

Only if you assume no Muggles are also squibs.

As an alternative hypothesizes, squibs and Muggles may be genetically the same, squibs just get squib powers because they grew up exposed to magic.

[Jasper]

There is also a chance Rowling didn't think much of it, and Yudkowsky's universe will have some changes due to his rule of taking the givens more seriously.

[BabylonHoruv]

Only if you assume no Muggles are also squibs.

As an alternative hypothesizes, squibs and Muggles may be genetically the same, squibs just get squib powers because they grew up exposed to magic.

no, it makes them impossible.  If the wizard gene is dominant anyone with it is a wizard.  If it is recessive then wizards cannot have squib children.  In the story it is recessive, Pope Lech was suggesting it was dominant.  Either one renders something impossible.  If wizarding is genetic it has to be more complex, it can't be simple Mendelian genetics.

[BabylonHoruv]

There is also a chance Rowling didn't think much of it, and Yudkowsky's universe will have some changes due to his rule of taking the givens more seriously.

I doubt Rowling gave it much thought.  However the rules are a lot stricter in this take on the Rowling universe,  this error doesn't ruin the story for me, but I am surprised something so obvious got by the author.

[Jasper]

The other possibility is that wizarding isn't genetic.  Magic has so far failed to follow any other sensible rules, so why this?

[BabylonHoruv]

The other possibility is that wizarding isn't genetic.  Magic has so far failed to follow any other sensible rules, so why this?

Magic may not be tied directly to DNA in Rowlings universe, however it does have a MUCH higher incidence of appearance in children of witches and wizards than in children of muggles.  So wether or not it is genetic it is hereditary.

It could be genetic and rely on more than 2 bits, so, for instance, say it relies on 6 bits, if someone has 1 or 2 of those bits they have no magic, if they have 3,4,or 5 they have magic, if they have 6 they have no magic.  I don't know if real genes can work that way but it would allow for both muggle borns and squibs if it worked that way.

[Jasper]

Also, finally noticing a bias I had, yet another option is that squibness is a recessive trait in wizards that occasionally comes out.  Perhaps a vestigial trait on its' way out, after a several wizard generations.