Emperor's Soul Theory Discussions

[Windrunner he/him]

See, I disagree on that Joe. I'll quote my analysis on it from my OP.

Bloodsealing:

I did not expect two entirely new systems on Sel. At first I thought that Bloodsealing was simply a subset of Forgery. Howevery his appearance made me think differently, as well as the fact that he is never referred to as a Forger and Frava doesn't use him to study Shai's work. The seal gave me pause, but it doesn't work like any of Shai's Soulseals do. I think they must work differently. Forgery also doesn't require anything from the people it's used on, no blood or etc. Also Forgery is all about possibilities. And I'd say the possibility of a walking skeleton is zero, so it can't be Forgery at work. It seems really really similar to Awakening, so I can't wait to see more of it.

All right, anything cool you guys noticed that I didn't? Or maybe you've got some thoughts on one of these points? I'm super excited to hear from everyone.

[dyring]

So if you lift Elantris the city and look underneath, will you find a stamp placed there long ago by someone?

whoever it was must have had a devil of a time convincing the city it was plausible that it was to draw energy and transform people into demigods

(not completely serious, but I agree with those who mentioned simularities)

[Shardbearer he/him]

Timeline:

I'm thinking that TES must be set a fair ways after Elantris, I'd say maybe around 30 years or so give or take a bit. The fact is that there is no real hint at these people in Elantris, Brandon seems to have added them in later. So there has to be a reasonable interim period of discovery and interaction here. The Derethi had no idea of this nation, but they've now known long enough to send an ambassador. I think adventurers like Kiin may have known and surely Teod did since they share a continent, but it's not like they would tell Fjorden, considering the iron curtain between the two nations. If I had a potential secret ally I'd keep it on the down-low.

I don't know about this one. Are you saying that because Elantris never mentioned the MaiPon people (other than the MaiPon sticks) they must not have existed yet? Or that they weren't known about?

I would say it's possible they never got mentioned because it simply wasn't pertinent to the story. Maybe Fjorden wasn't as worried about conquering them since they might be a small "empire".

[Kurkistan he/him]

^According to Brandon (can't find the source for some reason, help, anyone?), the other continents don't count as properly holy, so they don't matter in the "conquer the world" counter.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Kurkistan

[sententiadominus he/him]

@Windrunner: In the latest episode of Writing Excuses, they discuss Emperor's Soul, and Mary mentions how she likes the “different specialties" of the magic system (singular) saying "there’s the forger, then you’ve got the resellers, and then you’ve got the guy who does the blood magic…” and Brandon went along with this ("mmhmm, mmhmm" etc.). Not very solid proof, but it sounds like Bloodsealing is apart of the Forgery magic system.

[Windrunner he/him]

Aye, I had seen something in the book recently that seemed to hint that direction too, but I had Josh ask a question for me about it at the recent signing and apparently there's a pretty interesting answer, so we'll just have to sit tight for a bit.

[Scattered she/her]

Warning, slight WOK spoiler.

This makes me think of why it may be dangerous to go to Shadesmar near Sel. If we have many objects that believe in different realities, timelines even, that could make shadesmar a very confusing place. maybe its hard to anchor yourself to the actual reality of sel when it is so diluted with forgeries. Complete speculation, but it seams logical to me.

At first I thought that this wouldn't make sense, since Roshar is so full of soul-cast objects and they don't have trouble going to Shadesmar. But then I realized that those objects actually physically change, instead of just believing that they've changed. And if Shadesmar is really made up of all those little balls of consciousness that Shallan sees in WOK, then I can see how it would be a very confusing place when that consciousness is confused. I think you hit on a pretty solid theory for this.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Scattered

[lewstherin95 he/him]

I think it's more likely that ralkalest just has such an unknown past that no one can forge it. Say it is a normal meteorite, not souls of gods meteorite, and everyone was trying to tell it that it came from a quarry? the seal would not take, and it would be unforgeable. The only problem with this is that someone has to know where to they found it, so they would know if it was in a crater or a quarry. But it could be that said meteorite had long since been covered over, so it seems like it came from the planet.

[Kurkistan he/him]

I think it's more likely that ralkalest just has such an unknown past that no one can forge it. Say it is a normal meteorite, not souls of gods meteorite, and everyone was trying to tell it that it came from a quarry? the seal would not take, and it would be unforgeable. The only problem with this is that someone has to know where to they found it, so they would know if it was in a crater or a quarry. But it could be that said meteorite had long since been covered over, so it seems like it came from the planet.

I doubt that it's such a mundane explanation. You could simply Forge Rakarest into having been some other kind of metal all along in that case, like saying that the person who provided the Rakarest was mistaken, or intentionally provided some similar-looking metal instead, defrauding the buyer. You don't have to know an object's entire history to Forge it: you could just start with the "dug out the ground" part. I doubt Shau has to include the entire process of sedementarion if she wants to replace some basaltic rock with sandstone.

[Thought]

I'm a bit late to the party, but thought it might be useful to reconsider some of these questions based on the issue of investiture.

Let's take anthracite as an example: even if it was created by Brandon, it couldn't be part of a shard. Why? Too low investiture. We know that investiture interferes with magic. We also know that Shai either could forge rocks into anthracite, or that it is so possible that no one batted an eye at the idea that she could. So, since Shai's not a shard, she can't be putting shardic levels of investiture into an object, so she shouldn't be able to make anthracite. To provide an analogy: do we think that Shai could forge iron into lerasium? I'd think not (but of course could be very wrong).

Ralkalest is more interesting, although as Windrunner noted, Sanderson has already done the "physical solid aspect of a shard is a metal" bit. Additionally, that might mean that Ralkalest has the shard holder's name in it, but we know the name of all the shard holders who have (at least as of the time of Elantris) interacted with the planet.

That aside, I do think we can conclude that Ralkalest has a high level of investiture, which is why magic won’t work on it. I suspect that an allomancer would have difficulty pushing and pulling on it, as well. Now, the aluminum objection might be brought up (aluminum stops magical effects), but I think that saying that Aluminum has a higher than normal (for allomancy) level of investiture is likely. We do know that it can be used to cleanse the body of impurities, and it affects an allomancer's connection with their metals, so that implies a not very physical level of effect. So, I suspect that aluminum has a high level of investiture, and in turn, so does Ralkalest.

As a side note, if Ralkalest is a manifestation of a shard's power, then the meteorites that Shai's people worship can't be part of a shard (else she should know that they are also Ralkalest). And vice versa: if the meteorites aren't ralkalest, then she wouldn't think that ralkalest is holy (and she doesn't, so I suspect this is the truth of the matter).

Also, just because someone calls themselves Hoid, that doesn't mean they are the "real" Hoid. At least, I think Sanderson has warned us that not everyone by that name is actually the Hoid we don't know, but would very much like to know and love. I'm a bit suspicious of this actually being Hoid, simply because he's already been the Wit for a different ruler. None of this is proof that he's not, of course.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

... I really don't understand what you're saying there.  What's supposed to be special/not special about coal?

Edited June 17, 2013 by Phantom Monstrosity

[Thought]

I used anthracite as an example of how investiture can preempt some of the ideas about what is or isn't a manifestation of a shard's power. The fact that anthracite is coal is not particularly important, and doesn't preclude Windrunner's OP suggestion that it is the Devotion/Domination/Odium equivalent of lerasium/atium. While we might be incredulous at the idea that Sanderson would make a real world material into a physical aspects of a shard in the cosmere, we can't conclude anything from our doubt (to do so would be to commit the appeal to emotion logical fallacy).

 

To put it another way, people had believed the right thing (that anthracite isn't a physical shard) for the wrong reason (because it's coal). I tried to provide a right reason.

[Kurkistan he/him]

While I agree with your point about anthracite, Thought, I would like to take this opportunity to make one of my trademark generalizing statements that unnecessarily vilifies a specific and otherwise perfectly blameless Sharder.

 

I don't think that an incredulous reaction from Sharders ought to be discounted in it's entirety. Incredulity certainly isn't an overwhelming reason to discount a theory, perhaps not even a strong reason, but it does give us reason to lower our regard for a theory, all things being equal. Perhaps even enough to face down some small amount of supporting evidence.

 

"Gut feelings"--Intuition and its insights--are real, based on the collation of diverse and seemingly disconnected experiences and thoughts that can give one a unique grasp of the reality of any given situation. The members of this site are possessed of a (mildly unhealthy ) expertise in matters Cosmerical, with a firm grasp on the known (and generally-held) laws and patterns of the Cosmere and also a general understanding of Brandon's style and tendencies in his writings. Our understanding of the Cosmere may well be wrong in many ways, and Brandon can (and almost certainly will) throw us curveballs that knock our perception of "where it's all going" out of whack, but, as a rule, I think it wise to take heed when such a community reacts with naught but incredulity.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Kurkistan

[blackmagic3 he/him]

I think there is a very simple answer to Ralkalest, forging changes the past of an object what if Ralkalest just doesn't change.

[Thought]

@Blackmagic, it sounds a little like you are saying that Ralkalest doesn't forge because it is, well, unforgeable. I suspect I'm just misunderstanding your point, would you mind rephrasing it?

 

Incredulity certainly isn't an overwhelming reason to discount a theory, perhaps not even a strong reason, but it does give us reason to lower our regard for a theory, all things being equal.

 

Perhaps we aren't talking about the same thing, but an argument from incredulity is a specific version of the appeal to emotion logical fallacy. By definition, logical fallacies are invalid arguments. If all things are equal, yet one side appeals to a gut reaction, then things are still equal. That said, intuition can motivate a person into forming a logical argument, so it has a use at least.

[Kurkistan he/him]

Perhaps we aren't talking about the same thing, but an argument from incredulity is a specific version of the appeal to emotion logical fallacy. By definition, logical fallacies are invalid arguments. If all things are equal, yet one side appeals to a gut reaction, then things are still equal. That said, intuition can motivate a person into forming a logical argument, so it has a use at least.

 

While binary logic is quite nice, Thought, we live in a world of probabilities and degrees of proof. Beyond appeals to authority or any such thing, if I'm looking at two competing theories of otherwise equal merit (or lack of merit), and Chaos weighs in on one of them and says "this doesn't feel right to me", then you can bet which one I'll choose if I have to pick one or the other. It doesn't mean that my world will be shattered if Chaos' gut was wrong, but I would be at least a tad surprised.

 

We also have the fact that we are talking about authored works, and so it's not a case of saying that the speed of light being constant doesn't "feel right" or some such statement about the physical world, but instead our intuitions are at least partially, based on our understanding of Brandon as an author.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Kurkistan

[Thought]

 ...if I'm looking at two competing theories of otherwise equal merit (or lack of merit), and Chaos weighs in on one of them and says "this doesn't feel right to me", then you can bet which one I'll choose if I have to pick one or the other. It doesn't mean that my world will be shattered if Chaos' gut was wrong, but I would be at least a tad surprised.

 

I'll just leave this here:

 

Ah, this is the gem I was referring to before.  Never gets old   Sorry Chaos.

 

I believe Andrew convinced me this was not so. Hemalurgy is its own magic system: it does not grant the power of Allomancy. That's like saying if you burned the supposed 16th metal, it would give you Feruchemy--except that "burning" metals has nothing to do with Feruchemy, which uses the metals as storage devices.

I find it doubtful that Hemalurgy would give you the power of another magic system, because Hemalurgy appears to follow a different model than simple power-stealing. I like the theory that Hemalurgy uses the metals as sort of "lightning-rods" for the body's energy. It "burns" the body's energy through the metals, whereas Allomancy burns metals... through the body. It seems to me that Inquisitors could just get Allomancy from the 15th metal (the one Elend ate).

That's my theory, and I'm going to stick to it until I have a reason not to. Of course, even as I'm writing this post, I am seeing some very clear flaws in this... It's probably best to not listen to me too much.

 

 

Chaos went with his gut, he was wrong, so I take it that you are surprised. To be fair, given the time that the statement was made, I think someone could have made a very strong and logically sound argument for the same thing. Logic isn't a guarantee that you'll come to the right answer, and using a logical fallacy doesn't guarantee that your conclusion is wrong, either (that would be the "argumentum ad logicam" fallacy!). But it is a way of evaluating what arguments are reasonable and what ones aren't.

 

To note, Sanderson has specifically said he likes breaking expectations (and yet he still had the mentor die in Mistborn). So, we actually have decent reason to not trust our gut reactions: if we feel it, Sanderson probably felt it, and would have wanted to avoid it. Or not. Because he's Sanderson.

[Kurkistan he/him]

Just to be clear, then: You place no value whatsoever on intuitions that are not linked to independent (if perhaps intuition-inspired) argumentation?

[Thought]

Aye, in the context of a formal argument, appeals to emotion have no place. Which isn't to say we can't have informal arguments: but then, informal arguments also shouldn't hold as much weight.

[Kurkistan he/him]

Our differences may come down to differing perceptions of degrees of formality, then. I think the majority of discussions on these boards can be categorized as at least partially informal. Some few try for total rigor, but lie somewhere between bare statements of opinion and semi-substantiated theorizing based at least in part on what "feels right". Because of this large amount of "informality", at least so far as argumentation goes, I think intuition should just as generally be given its due.

[Leuthie]

Since we're talking about things that quite possibly can't have a logical conclusion yet because the creator of the source of the arguments has intentionally given too little information for conclusions to be drawn, intuition and gut can be used as valid arguments. However, don't expect anyone to buy into your feeling without some quality salesmanship.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

To put it another way, people had believed the right thing (that anthracite isn't a physical shard) for the wrong reason (because it's coal). I tried to provide a right reason.

 

 

The burden of proof is on the person trying to assert that something is a shardic manifestation.  The default assumption (barring extraordinary evidence to the contrary) is that something isn't shardic. 

 

The fact that something hasn't demonstrated any supernatural properties or significance whatsoever is in and of itself sufficient to discredit any argument that relies upon it being shardic in nature.

 

IE: Since it's normal coal, we cannot assume that it's abnormal without evidence.

[Thought]

@Phantom, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, regardless of what that claim is. Thus, if someone is making the claim that anthracite is shardic, yes, they have to provide proof. But if you wish to make the claim that anthracite is not shardic, the burden of proof is then on you. You can point out that someone's argument is wrong, but that doesn't allow you to conclude that their conclusion is wrong as well. If you want to prove their conclusion is wrong, you have to provide an argument yourself.

 

Do keep in mind that I am not trying to say that coal is shardic. My original point was that it isn't, and so I provided valid argumentation to that end which was thereto lacking. It sounds like we are on the same page in that regard, at least, and that our divergence is in what makes for proper means.

 

EDIT: Kurk, I agree that intuition should be given its due. We're just in disagreement over what its due is

Edited June 20, 2013 by Thought

[Phantom Monstrosity]

@Phantom, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, regardless of what that claim is.

 

Not the case at all.  For example, if someone says 'my new drug cures all forms of cancer', the burden of proof is solely on them to prove it.  You can't put the burden on the general public to disprove that, especially when they don't know what the drug is made of.

[Kurkistan he/him]

One important thing to keep in mind is "default" assumptions. As Phantom says, "this new drug cures cancer" runs counter to how we know the world to be up to the point when that statement is made. If we lived in a world where all drugs (even Tylenol) cured cancer, though, this would not be an extraordinary claim, and so the doubter would be the one who needs to provide evidence.

 

Whenever we say that one side or the other needn't provide evidence, we are actually saying that prevailing opinion and/or the known nature of the world is very much on their side. In the case of anthracite, the "default" assumption (backed by a fair amount of widely-known evidence) is that the vast majority of objects are not Invested, and so someone saying "anthracite is Invested" needs to provide the proof in order to offset that ingrained doubt.

 

So in the case where one side has 100% of known knowledge against them, their opponents have no burden. Technically, if there's even a sliver of doubt, each side has a burden. In practical terms, though, most of the higher percentages probably follow the same model, in terms of what we bother to argue about.

 

Yes, we could all be the spiritual descendants of space aliens, technically, but I'm not obligated to tell you why we aren't just because of some absurdly small chance that we are. Yes, your drug could cure cancer (you are a pharmaceutical researcher, after all) but I still need a tad of proof before I'll engage you on that claim.

 

Anthracite being Shardic falls into the "highly implausible" range. Sure, we can engage on the issue, and probably would if there were more at stake, but, as stands, it's really not worth it beyond "show me the proof".

Edited June 20, 2013 by Kurkistan