bmcclure7 Posted May 9, 2025 Author Posted May 9, 2025 On 5/8/2025 at 12:48 PM, Returned said: I'd lean towards describing this potential use of "gods" as poetic (here read as "not literal") for the reasons I already described, more than once now: an extreme disparity in relative power/capacity/influence of some beings over others. The "gods of rock 'n' roll" example I gave expresses this very precisely with literally no metaphysical aspects. In such a usage, "hyperbolic" might be a fair descriptor. I'd lean against suggesting that Cosmere magics are metaphysical because the books go to great lengths to establish that magic is a part of the physical universe in which the stories take place, and that that magic is bound by very specific rules exactly as mundane phenomena are. I could probably be convinced otherwise. But that's off-topic for this thread as the point I'm making is that the word "god" can be used without religious or metaphysical implications, as above. That one definition might fit a usage, among other definitions that also might fit, does not mean that that one definition is definitely the one that was intended. The old Twilight Zone episode To Serve Man is a great example of exactly this phenomenon. Another perspective on this might be Vorinism, which specifically held that there was only one God, the Almighty, and no others (as far as I recall, maybe other posters can correct me if I'm mistaken on that). From the Vorin perspective, then, Retribution could not be a god in the same sense that they considered the Almighty to be. A very powerful being, certainly, but categorically different from the Almighty whom they believed to be the only god that could have that description. When multiple definitions of a word are listed, that word can mean any of those definitions. It does not need to mean all of them at once-- that's why there are multiple definitions instead of just one. The baptized member part is not the only definition listed, and the other definitions do not include that limitation, and so there are uses of "heresy" which do not require the baptized member component. Either a person meant to use that one specific definition for Jasnah, and was wrong in trying to use it, or they were using one of the other definitions and so that component does not apply. There isn't any reason to think that the former is the case. Etymology is interesting but that a word once meant one thing doesn't indicate that it can never ever mean anything else, no matter how people use it in practice. Merriam Webster's dictionary, as posted here so many times now, lists several definitions for "heresy" which are currently in use. Several of them are perfectly applicable to Jasnah in relation to the Vorin church. Feel free to write to them to complain, if you feel so strongly about it. You are free to not like that usage of a word has expanded, and that as a result you have to accept people expressing some of those other usages in order to communicate with them. Again, I sympathize: I like language to be precise. But your preferences aren't going to control how other people use English, and violating your linguistic preferences doesn't make a person wrong. The dictionary entry is decisive here: you are 100% incorrect in deciding that other people must mean what you want "heresy" to mean when they use that word, rather than any of the other definitions (which have almost certainly been in use for longer than any of us have been alive). The word has more possible definitions than you assert, and that's true whether you accept it or not, whether you like it or not. You are not the czar of American English (that's czar, meaning "one having great power or authority" or "emperor", derived from tzar, derived from tsĭsarĭ, derived from kaisar, derived from Caesar. I am using the current definition, not suggesting that there might be confision over whether or not you are the long-dead Roman emperor ). In any event I don't see anything more to discuss here as you've chosen to ignore the plain definitions listed in the dictionary because you don't like them, and in ignoring them there simply isn't any way to engage on the topic. Maybe usage of English will shift more towards your preferences in the future. Good luck to you. “extreme disparity in relative power/capacity/influence of some beings over others.” 1. You realize this qualifies you as being a God in most religions. 2. “I'd lean against suggesting that Cosmere magics are metaphysical because the books go to great lengths to establish that magic is a part of the physical universe” Do you not understand basic realmatics. Most investure isn’t even in the physical or originating from the spiritual realm by definition. It cannot be physical. Just like spring spren are by definition, not physical. More than that it is literally the body of a being that created the realms by definition it cannot be physical as something that predates the physical realm cannot be physical. Furthermore investure has been shown to easily break physical lawsinstead about it is bound by its own metaphysical rules. By definition, something that breaks physical laws cannot be physical. 3. I feel like we are just going to have to agree and disagree on heresy. I can’t think of a single person who’s ever used heresy in the way you insist that we use it but if you want to use it that way I really can’t stop you.
Returned he/him Posted May 9, 2025 Posted May 9, 2025 (edited) 51 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said: 1. You realize this qualifies you as being a God in most religions. Not really. Are you a religious figure to an ant or a dog? It seems like you're reverse engineering the term into a religious context. Have at it. 51 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said: Do you not understand basic realmatics. Most investure isn’t even in the physical or originating from the spiritual realm by definition. It cannot be physical. Just like spring spren are by definition, not physical. More than that it is literally the body of a being that created the realms by definition it cannot be physical as something that predates the physical realm cannot be physical. Furthermore investure has been shown to easily break physical lawsinstead about it is bound by its own metaphysical rules. By definition, something that breaks physical laws cannot be physical. You can hold it in your hand in a gem stone, you can store it in a cloth, it has mass (faint, but it exists), and spren have physical bodies in the cognitive realm and (sometimes, at least) in the physical. It follows conservation of mass and energy and can be quantified and measured reliably, though it certainly does have its own magical element to it. Elend has some interesting thoughts on the subject, though brief, in Well of Ascension (I think, I could be mistaken on the book). There is some interesting discussion to be had about where the physicality of Investiture breaks down, especially when the realms are not equally physical but are all places where you could physically go. 51 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said: 3. I feel like we are just going to have to agree and disagree on heresy. I can’t think of a single person who’s ever used heresy in the way you insist that we use it but if you want to use it that way I really can’t stop you. I can help you out here with some people: everyone in this thread except for you, Sanderson, the lexicographers who compile the Merriam Webster dictionary, and all of the people whose uses informed that compilation. It seems, however, that we will have to disagree. I'm not going to post any more in this thread. If you refuse to engage with examples and arguments and refuse to accept the dictionary's definitions then there isn't any discussion to be had, and your manner here has regularly come off as aggressive if not hostile (to my reading, perhaps others would disagree. Hopefully that wasn't your intent-- I can sympathize with that too, as I know I come off more aggressively than I intend in online forum posts at least some of the time). The question in the OP has been answered about as well as it ever could be anyways, if not satisfyingly. Edited May 9, 2025 by Returned 3
bmcclure7 Posted May 9, 2025 Author Posted May 9, 2025 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Returned said: Not really. Are you a religious figure to an ant or a dog? It seems like you're reverse engineering the term into a religious context. Have at it. You can hold it in your hand in a gem stone, you can store it in a cloth, it has mass (faint, but it exists), and spren have physical bodies in the cognitive realm and (sometimes, at least) in the physical. It follows conservation of mass and energy and can be quantified and measured reliably, though it certainly does have its own magical element to it. Elend has some interesting thoughts on the subject, though brief, in Well of Ascension (I think, I could be mistaken on the book). There is some interesting discussion to be had about where the physicality of Investiture breaks down, especially when the realms are not equally physical but are all places where you could physically go. I can help you out here with some people: everyone in this thread except for you, Sanderson, the lexicographers who compile the Merriam Webster dictionary, and all of the people whose uses informed that compilation. It seems, however, that we will have to disagree. I'm not going to post any more in this thread. If you refuse to engage with examples and arguments and refuse to accept the dictionary's definitions then there isn't any discussion to be had, and your manner here has regularly come off as aggressive if not hostile (to my reading, perhaps I'm wrong; hopefully that wasn't your intent). The question in the OP has been answered about as well as it ever could be anyways, if not satisfyingly. 1 “Not really. Are you a religious figure to an ant or a dog? It seems like you're reverse engineering the term into a religious context. Have at it.” actually, you could argue that from some religious respective we are. The whole image of God thing and imaging God to the universe. 2. “You can hold it in your hand in a gem stone, you can store it in a cloth, it has mass (faint, but it exists), and spren have physical bodies in the cognitive realm and (sometimes, at least) in the physical. It followsconservation of mass and energy and can be quantified and measured reliably, though it certainly does have its own magical element to it. Elend has some interesting thoughts on the subject, though brief, in Well of Ascension (I think, I could be mistaken on the book). There is some interesting discussion to be had about where the physicality of Investiture breaks down, especially when the realms are not equally physical but are all places where you could physically go.” Wrong again spread and have cognitive bodies in the cognitive realm. Spren cannot have physical bodies unless they are pulled completely into the physical realm. They often do not survive the experience since cognitive bodies are not bound by the laws of physics and when converted into physical bodies, just cannot survive please read rhythm of war for further details. Wrong again investure sometimes has mass. Sometimes it does not. (Chromatic breath has no mass and neither does the soul both of which are made out of investure) Further proof that it’s not bound by physical laws. Brandon has periodically said that investure breaks the laws of thermal dynamics. This includes the laws of conservation of energy in indeed, without breaking these laws most magic systems would be impossible. I agree that investigature cannot be created or destroyed, but disagree that This is because of the law of thermodynamics, but probably more to do with the metaphysical nature of investure. 3. “I can help you out here with some people: everyone in this thread except for you, Sanderson, the lexicographers who compile the Merriam Webster dictionary, and all of the people whose uses informed that compilation. It seems, however, that we will have to disagree.” please give me one example of heretic being used in this context outside of this form and the books of Stormlight cause I cannot think of one I have never ever heard a Hindi refer to a Christian as a heretic. I’ve never heard a Christian refer to an atheist as a heretic. If you have one example of this, please show me. Edited May 9, 2025 by bmcclure7
therunner he/him Posted May 10, 2025 Posted May 10, 2025 (edited) 9 hours ago, bmcclure7 said: Wrong again spread and have cognitive bodies in the cognitive realm. Spren cannot have physical bodies unless they are pulled completely into the physical realm. They often do not survive the experience since cognitive bodies are not bound by the laws of physics and when converted into physical bodies, just cannot survive please read rhythm of war for further details. Spren have enough physicality to interact with PR objects, e.g. even in TWoK Syl is capable of physically carrying a leaf. Hence, spren do have physical bodies. In Cognitive they also have bodies, that are just as physical as anything else that exists there, there is no distinction made between physical object brought into CR, and native CR objects. CR realm is bound by different laws of physics, but they very much still are laws of physics. Spoiler Questioner Is there a centralized set of rules for all of the magic systems? Brandon Sanderson Yes, but they are things more like the laws of thermodynamics. Not vague, but general, very general. But, yes, there are some rules. Arcanum Unbounded release party (Nov. 22, 2016) Spoiler Questioner I'm a physical chemist and I'm reading your book [The Way of Kings] right now and at some point you have someone studying flamespren and what they saw, that's one of the fundamental tenets of quantum mechanics-- Brandon Sanderson Yes. Questioner So you got that from quantum mechanics? Brandon Sanderson I did get that from quantum mechanics. Questioner How did you come across that and decide to incorporate that into your epic fantasy? Brandon Sanderson Well The Way of Kings' magic systems are based on the fundamental forces. That was the original idea and the extrapolation from them. I'm fascinated by quantum mechanics and I have worked them into the way that-- Remember in my worlds, my books, the magics are a new branch of physics, in these worlds. And so they interact with our normal physics, it's not like they are ignoring them, so they obey the laws of thermodynamics, even when they appear to be breaking them, and they interact with quantum and all the stuff. It's just very natural that they are going to, to me if that makes sense? It would be weird if they didn't interact with them. Firefight Chicago signing (Feb. 20, 2015) Quote Wrong again investure sometimes has mass. Sometimes it does not. (Chromatic breath has no mass and neither does the soul both of which are made out of investure) Further proof that it’s not bound by physical laws. Citation needed that Breath does not have mass, or that soul does not have mass. Investiture is just another 'phase' so to speak, and as such must have mass. Just because no one measured it yet, does not mean it does not have it. Quote Brandon has periodically said that investure breaks the laws of thermal dynamics. This includes the laws of conservation of energy in indeed, without breaking these laws most magic systems would be impossible. No, that is not what he said, Brandon said that in Cosmere Laws of Thermodynamics are extended by Investiture Spoiler Questioner So my question is this: So, Investiture is a different [type?] of existence separate from matter and energy, right? Brandon Sanderson Yes. Questioner So, does entropy apply to Investiture? Brandon Sanderson Yes... It does, with some caveats, but yes. It works a little differently, but it does apply. You should be able to apply all three laws of thermodynamics with... accounting for a third state of matter, energy. Tel Aviv Signing (Oct. 18, 2019) So in-world, nothing breaks law of conservation of energy, because Investiture is also type of energy. If some Invested art is seemingly breaking conservation of energy, that energy just comes from Investiture. That is even the reason for why some metals burn faster than others, they do more work, so they must provide more Investiture. Quote I agree that investigature cannot be created or destroyed, but disagree that This is because of the law of thermodynamics, but probably more to do with the metaphysical nature of investure. You are wrong again, here is Brandon literally saying that Investiture follows its own version of Laws of Thermodynamics Spoiler yurisses You once said that Investiture follows its own version of the laws of thermodynamics. The first one is that Investiture is neither created nor destroyed. Is the second law of Investodynamics that the amount of corrupted Investiture in the Cosmere cannot decrease? Brandon Sanderson Basically, the idea is that there is a third item in the equations--matter, energy, and investiture. That's the basis of how they work. Entropy is not corrupted Investiture. The second law stands as is. However, there is a fourth law that relates to Adonalsium, which I'm not going to talk about at the moment. /r/books AMA 2015 (July 14, 2015) Spoiler trevorade Is investiture finite? Hemalurgy and a Return's need to consume breath seems to show us that it can be destroyed. If it is finite, is the Cosmere's magic source doomed to the law of entropy? Brandon Sanderson Investiture can not be created or destroyed. It follows it's own version of the laws of Thermodynamics. /r/books AMA 2015 (March 12, 2015) While Investiture is metaphysical to us, in Cosmere it is just another aspect of nature, no different from light, or protons, or anything else, and it obeys certain laws which can be described and quantified, so to them it literally it's just physics. Here Sanderson literally says the same Quote ... Brandon Sanderson Well The Way of Kings' magic systems are based on the fundamental forces. That was the original idea and the extrapolation from them. I'm fascinated by quantum mechanics and I have worked them into the way that-- Remember in my worlds, my books, the magics are a new branch of physics, in these worlds. And so they interact with our normal physics, it's not like they are ignoring them, so they obey the laws of thermodynamics, even when they appear to be breaking them, and they interact with quantum and all the stuff. It's just very natural that they are going to, to me if that makes sense? It would be weird if they didn't interact with them. Firefight Chicago signing (Feb. 20, 2015) Edited May 10, 2025 by therunner 1
Nitpicking Posted May 10, 2025 Posted May 10, 2025 I think some in this discussion are insisting on a monotheistic, Muslim or Christian or Jewish in particular, definition of "God". Other traditions (e. g. Shinto or Voudoun) have much more limited gods. In Shinto it's possible to worship a literal tree. The Romans worshiped Augustus Caesar as a god, well aware that he was and always had been a very fallible human being. 4
rridgway Posted May 20, 2025 Posted May 20, 2025 I've seen people use heretic when they should be using heathen, and vice versa. It doesn't strike me as weird that people would refer to Jasnah as a heretic. 2
Nitpicking Posted May 20, 2025 Posted May 20, 2025 I've always thought that people call Jasnah "Heretic" because she was raised Vorin, and then abandoned the practice. Many real-world religions (notably Islam) don't recognize that a person can ever leave. Once you're a Muslim, you're a Muslim--if you don't practice correctly, you're a bad Muslim, not an ex-Muslim. (Obviously there are lots of variations of Muslim belief and not all of them believe that, but it seems to be the basic Sunni position.) 3
Recommended Posts