The Fused before being Fused

[LewsTherinTelescope]

12 minutes ago, Kyn said:

It also lacks the elegance of explaining why Odium’s Voidlight didn’t suppress either Adhesion or Progression.

For such a theory to be convincing would require that it be supplemented with an explanation for this failure to suppress, not just for the lack of granting Adhesion.

I do think that Adhesion and Progression lining up with the Intents of Honor and Cultivation play into this (though it's difficult to be sure, since how the suppressor even works is sort of confusing and most theories I've seen have large holes). It's possible that the suppressor being designed to limit the Fused, who do not have Adhesion, might help with that Surge being allowed, and Lift's Lifelight usage could combine with Progression in some way to allow that one to work, but I have no sure answer.

12 minutes ago, Kyn said:

Furthermore, that theory requires a double standard – a conscious implementation of powers, which you have argued against in regards to the effects of the other Shards here:

I am not arguing that Odium set up the powers, though. I am arguing that, when he created the Fused, he granted access to the preexisting magic system, choosing which powers to give them. Same reason saying "Preservation did not invent the effects of the metals" does not contradict saying "Rashek chose which Allomantic powers the Inquisitors had". They're completely different topics, in my mind. 

12 minutes ago, Kyn said:

Occam’s Razor suggests that a more complicated explanation is only likely to be the correct one if it better explains observed evidence.

The thing is, I do see this as the simpler answer, compared to all the questions raised by him not being capable of granting Adhesion. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by LewsTherinTelescope

[Kyn]

@LewsTherinTelescope
Questions ≠ Complexity. A theory making more intuitive sense doesn’t make it simpler.

Occam’s Razor posits that the theory with the fewest assumptions, a general analogue for the simpler theory, is the more acceptable theory if multiple plausible theories account for the same evidence.

Shardic Nature Theory: the nature of Shards and their Intent confers particular abilities on certain Shards, and renders these abilities in specific respects off-limits to others. This theory requires only that single assumption to explain both Odium’s only-9 Surges and Voidlight’s failure to suppress certain abilities. Plus, it explains other Cosmere events.

How many assumptions are required if we consider the theory that Odium’s choice to limit the Surges he granted, and his Voidlight’s failure to make the fabrial suppress Adhesion, and its failure to suppress Lift’s Progression, all have distinct causes not bound up by the nature of the Shards? And that theory doesn’t even touch anything beyond Odium’s Surges.

It’s vital to question how Intent-based or other restrictions limit any Shard from granting particular abilities tied closely enough to other Shards. Or even if that’s the mechanism for those restrictions. We can wonder if Shards just oppose one another enough to willfully avoid interacting with (conferring or suppressing) abilities favored by other Shards, of if they physically cannot do so. We can even disagree about the likelihood of universally- and consistently-applied Shardic limitation potentially based on Intent.

The existence of those questions about how a theory works in no way makes a simple theory complicated. It still posits that a single (possibly composite) effect universally limits all Shards in the exact same way. The alternative still posits that several distinct factors are required to explain the Odium’s 9 Surges and failures to suppress. When fewer assumptions explain vastly more facts/observations, that’s definitely simpler.

[LewsTherinTelescope]

On 1/23/2021 at 1:58 AM, Kyn said:

@LewsTherinTelescope
Questions ≠ Complexity. A theory making more intuitive sense doesn’t make it simpler.

Occam’s Razor posits that the theory with the fewest assumptions, a general analogue for the simpler theory, is the more acceptable theory if multiple plausible theories account for the same evidence.

[...]

Fair point. I do still disagree with the theory, but as I think on it, it would, I suppose, be "simpler" under that definition (though I suppose it could depend on how exactly the suppressor even works, but I guess that would count as part of the theory? idk am tired).