Lerasium in Roshar

[Windrunner he/him]

I wasn't really speaking on usefulness at all. I was talking purely about how easy it is to discover something like that. Motion is something you see everywhere around you. On the other hand, "discovering realms" is not nearly so easy, especially on Sel with its Shadesmar problem.

 

Also, your minimum bar sounds pretty high to me. What would you consider to be complicated Realmatics? O.o

 

I think accurately being able to name the realms and some knowledge of how they interact with one another is basic.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

I wasn't really speaking on usefulness at all. I was talking purely about how easy it is to discover something like that. Motion is something you see everywhere around you. On the other hand, "discovering realms" is not nearly so easy, especially on Sel with its Shadesmar problem.

It's, if anything, easier on Sel.

'yeah there's a world full of white hot-energy.  you can see it whenever we cut a hole'

 

 

Also, your minimum bar sounds pretty high to me. What would you consider to be complicated Realmatics? O.o

 

Actually building something out of interactions, once you have an idea of how they work. 

 

I wouldn't consider anyone who just knew how to count, add and subtract to have a knowledge of 'basic mathematics'.  Even if they were using the very advanced and refined Arabic numeral system, instead of an intuitive and obvious tally mark notation.  Sure, they've managed to grasp the not-at-all obvious concept that 'fiveness' is a trait shared by five apples and five fingers (which is, surprisingly, the result of education drilling that idea into kids heads - it's just such a USEFUL idea that the cultures that don't have it are extremely rare).  I still wouldn't say they understood the basics.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Phantom Monstrosity

[WeiryWriter he/him]

I don't think there's that big a difference.  Knowing 'hey there are other realms of existence' isn't a particularly useful fact, given that it has no direct applicability to anything. 

 

My minimum bar for a 'basic understanding' here is having some ability to accurately predict what happens when a shard interacts with another shard or a planet. 

 

Anything below that fails to even be basic.  It's just having some vague idea how to play with the toys that some shard gave you.

 

I would say "hey there are other realms of existence" is an incredibly useful fact because it applies to everything in the cosmere.  Everything has aspects of each of the three realms which would be kind of useful to know.

 

That is an incredibly high bar for "basic understanding." That is like saying "Oh, you know calculus?  Then you have a basic understanding of mathematics.  What about arithmetic, algebra, and trigonometry you say? Those are so below basic they aren't important."  Which is completely ridiculous. Everything we know about realmatics points to inter-shardic interactions being very high-end problems in realmatics.

 

It's, if anything, easier on Sel.

'yeah there's a world full of white hot-energy.  you can see it whenever we cut a hole'

 

 

 

Actually building something out of interactions, once you have an idea of how they work. 

 

I wouldn't consider anyone who just knew how to count, add and subtract to have a knowledge of 'basic mathematics'.  Even if they were using the very advanced and refined Arabic numeral system, instead of an intuitive and obvious tally mark notation.  Sure, they've managed to grasp the not-at-all obvious concept that 'fiveness' is a trait shared by five apples and five fingers (which is, surprisingly, the result of education drilling that idea into kids heads - it's just such a USEFUL idea that the cultures that don't have it are extremely rare).  I still wouldn't say they understood the basics.

 

The impression I'm getting from this is that you are trying to say addition and subtraction isn't math.  Like, really?  Yes I would agree that the person doesn't have a particularly good grasp of math but if they can add and subtract than they understand basic arithmetic, which by its very definition means they "have a knowledge of 'basic mathematics'." They need to understand addition and subtraction before they can move on to anything more complex which mean they are "the basics."

 

I'm of the opinion that Phantom is interpreting this quote a little too strictly. I'm sure, as others have said, that knowledge of some of the intricacies of Realmatic theory may have been beyond most people, but the basics are known on at least three worlds. He also could have simply been referring that no one on Scadrial, at that point in time, could know such things without being a Shard or a Splinter. The cosmere has science, people will figure it out.

Hopefully, I'll be seeing Brandon at a signing in a few months, I'll be sure to get this question cleared up.

 

I agree with this.  I could see the quote specifically dealing with the realmatics of lerasium/atium alloys.

 

Edit: Can I also say we have gotten very off-topic.  What do you have to say about my argument on why Vin has lee-way with Preservation's power that I described in post 25, since you never responded to that?

Edited July 9, 2013 by WeiryWriter

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

I wouldn't consider anyone who just knew how to count, add and subtract to have a knowledge of 'basic mathematics'.  Even if they were using the very advanced and refined Arabic numeral system, instead of an intuitive and obvious tally mark notation.  Sure, they've managed to grasp the not-at-all obvious concept that 'fiveness' is a trait shared by five apples and five fingers (which is, surprisingly, the result of education drilling that idea into kids heads - it's just such a USEFUL idea that the cultures that don't have it are extremely rare).  I still wouldn't say they understood the basics.

 

So by that logic the Phoenician abjad isn't important to the development of language? Alphabets aren't really important to linguistics at all. Arithmetic's not important to mathematics. Biology's not important to medicine. See where I'm going with this?

 

The Three Realms are what allow Realmatics to function as a valid construct of the cosmere, and what allow the cosmere to exist. My analogy of the atom given function by its constituent parts was not inaccurate; strip away the proton and you'd have to redefine the entirety of physics. Take away one of the Realms and you'd have to redefine Realmatics. That is nothing to undervalue as something less than basic when the entire theory is dependent on it. Just as mathematics is dependent on the basic function of arithmetic and numeral systems. However, I feel that the Realms are more akin to the mathematical law that governs every aspect of mathematics.

 

For someone to discover and describe with accuracy the three layers of the universe it'd be quite important to further understanding of the science. Just as we described particle physics before we could even begin to understand quantum mechanics or M-theory, Realmatics is only possible because of the existence of the Realms and their definition. Saying that isn't important or even basic is absurd.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

No, I'm saying that very elementary concepts are (while necessary), still insufficient to clear the bar of having a basic understanding of a subject.  Addition and subtraction are part of math, but someone who could only do those wouldn't be considered to have a basic understanding of it.

[Nesh he/him]

No, I'm saying that very elementary concepts are (while necessary), still insufficient to clear the bar of having a basic understanding of a subject.  Addition and subtraction are part of math, but someone who could only do those wouldn't be considered to have a basic understanding of it.

 

Let's look up the word basic shall we?  The second definition from the dictionary:

2

: constituting or serving as the basis or starting point

 

What's the first math the teach us in school?  Addition at subtraction.  Which is then the base for teaching multipication and division, which then allows us to advance further.  Addition and subtractiion are the the starting point of all our matematical education, and thus by the defintion provided by the dictonary are what?  The basics that's right.  The same applies to Realmatics, with the three realms being addition and subtraction.

[WeiryWriter he/him]

No, I'm saying that very elementary concepts are (while necessary), still insufficient to clear the bar of having a basic understanding of a subject.  Addition and subtraction are part of math, but someone who could only do those wouldn't be considered to have a basic understanding of it.

 

Yes they would.  A basic understanding requires an understanding of the very fundamentals of a subject.  Addition and Subtraction are the fundamentals of math, ergo if one can do addition and subtraction they have a basic understanding of math.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

Yes they would.  A basic understanding requires an understanding of the very fundamentals of a subject.  Addition and Subtraction are the fundamentals of math, ergo if one can do addition and subtraction they have a basic understanding of math.

 

Compare with the army.  Basic training is anywhere from fifteen to sixty-two weeks long.

 

Spending two days practicing how to load a rifle is part of being a soldier, but two days of rifle loading training is not the same as having basic training.  You can know facts about a subject without having a basic understanding of it.

[Windrunner he/him]

Compare with the army.  Basic training is anywhere from fifteen to sixty-two weeks long.

As compared to how long it takes to learn basic math? If you take just addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, the latter two aren't taught until third grade usually, about four years of learning.

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

No, I'm saying that very elementary concepts are (while necessary), still insufficient to clear the bar of having a basic understanding of a subject.  Addition and subtraction are part of math, but someone who could only do those wouldn't be considered to have a basic understanding of it.

 

Put two sticks and three sticks together and you have five. Break two of those sticks evenly and you have 4 halves. Each stick is one quarter of that group of broken sticks. Take away three sticks and you're left with two.

 

That basic logic of mathematics is dependent on being able to understand why putting two sticks with three equals five. Some lesser minds could sit there and scratch their heads if I say 128 + 128 = 256, but you need to understand it as a function to appreciate more complex formula. You also need to understand decimal point systems to know that the 2 is of a higher order than the 5 and which is to the 6.

 

If you understand arithmetic, you have a basic understanding of mathematics, because you understand the operators of addition and subtraction and also multiplication and division. These operators are basic, no arguement.

 

You're detrimentally under-estimating the importance of Realms by avoiding the definition of basic, and substituting your own false convictions to argue your point. 

 

 

Compare with the army.  Basic training is anywhere from fifteen to sixty-two weeks long.

 

Spending two days practicing how to load a rifle is part of being a soldier, but two days of rifle loading training is not the same as having basic training.  You can know facts about a subject without having a basic understanding of it.

 

Can't load a rifle? You can't fire your gun. Can't fire your gun? Sorry son but you can't be a soldier.

 

Can't do arithmetic, you have no hope of being able to do mathematics. It is so fundamental that it provides mathematics with its functionality. Just as the Realms provide Realmatics with a basic foundation for higher and more complex phenomena to interact.

 

Try doing any integration without arithmetic... You can't. Try explaining sDNA without the Spiritual Realm.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Lyrebon

[Phantom Monstrosity]

These operators are basic, no arguement.

 

Actually, successor operations are 'basic' by your definition.  And I would argue that you don't have a basic understanding of math until you can do algebra.

 

Being able to perform arithmetical operations by rote (including going through a multiplication of

123x

100

and carefully writing down that 0 times 3 is 0 and 0 times 2 is zero and 0 times 3 is zero, then moving onto the next digit, and writing down again that 0 times 3 is 0 and 0 times 2 is zero and 0 times 3 is zero, and then moving onto the next digit, and writing that 1 times 3 is 3, and 1 times 2 is 2 and 1 times 1 is 1, then carefully going through and adding things together.  That's not understanding basic math, even if multiplication is necessary.

 

Not a hypothetical example; I've done tutoring and there are high-school students who do that.

 

You're detrimentally under-estimating the importance of Realms by avoiding the definition of basic, and substituting your own false convictions to argue your point.

Then please, tell me what Brandon meant when he said you had to be a splinter or shard to understand?  You don't get to ignore a quote because you don't like it, you have to provide a plausible alternate interpretation.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Phantom Monstrosity

[Nesh he/him]

Then please, tell me what Brandon meant when he said you had to be a splinter or shard to understand?  You don't get to ignore a quote because you don't like it, you have to provide a plausible alternate interpretation.

I believe that he was rfering specifically to the implications of alloying atium and Lerasium, which are the fragments of two hards and opposites of each other.

[WeiryWriter he/him]

Oh my goodness Phantom, way to not read our posts.  We HAVE proposed an alternate interpretation of that quote, that he was referring to the realmatics of atium/lerasium alloys.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Rubix
language

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

Actually, successor operations are 'basic' by your definition.  And I would argue that you don't have a basic understanding of math until you can do algebra.

 

Being able to perform arithmetical operations by rote (including going through a multiplication of

123x

100

and carefully writing down that 0 times 3 is 0 and 0 times 2 is zero and 0 times 3 is zero, then moving onto the next digit, and writing down again that 0 times 3 is 0 and 0 times 2 is zero and 0 times 3 is zero, and then moving onto the next digit, and writing that 1 times 3 is 3, and 1 times 2 is 2 and 1 times 1 is 1, then carefully going through and adding things together.  That's not understanding basic math, even if multiplication is necessary.

 

Not a hypothetical example; I've done tutoring and there are high-school students who do that.

 

Then please, tell me what Brandon meant when he said you had to be a splinter or shard to understand?  You don't get to ignore a quote because you don't like it, you have to provide a plausible alternate interpretation.

 

...

 

I answered that latter point in a previous post. Here it is:

 

He's also said Realmatic Theory was part of the Terris religion.* An entire religion of people can't be Shards can they? And I'm pretty sure more than a few people in this thread have interpreted what Brandon said differently to you. Of note: advanced knowledge of alloying two God metals would almost certainly require an intimate knowledge of the Shards that created them. I believe that was what Brandon was referring to.

 

It's post #46 if you want to read it again. Don't accuse me of ignoring a point when you lack the conviction to thoroughly explore your own defense.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

He's also said Realmatic Theory was part of the Terris religion.* An entire religion of people can't be Shards can they? And I'm pretty sure more than a few people in this thread have interpreted what Brandon said differently to you. Of note: advanced knowledge of alloying two God metals would almost certainly require an intimate knowledge of the Shards that created them. I believe that was what Brandon was referring to.

 

Yes, I read that.  I just don't think it's at all supported by the quote.

 

 

"Ah, I've been asked this before. There are a number of theories, but nobody's really sure, since there haven't really been any opportunities to alloy lerasium with atium. You can choose which one to believe. Most require an understanding of realmatic theory to comprehend, which you need to be a Shard or Splinter to even begin to understand."

It is blatantly obvious that it is " realmatic theory " to which the 'must be a splinter or a shard' restriction applies.  Not any particular theory.  There is no other way to read that clause.

 

 It can't just be referring to 'people on scandrial' either, since there aren't any splinters on scandrial.

 

 

The only way I can see to reconcile this with the fact that people do have some amount of realmatic knowledge is if that amount is so inconsequential as not even clearing the bar of 'beginning to understand realmatic theory'.  Ie: knowing how to add numbers is nice, but that alone won't get you anywhere near understanding mathematical theory. 

Or if 'realmatic theory' is a term defined in-universe to refer to interactions on a higher level than just using a magic system.  Which is essentially the same thing.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Phantom Monstrosity

[Windrunner he/him]

Yes, I read that.  I just don't think it's at all supported by the quote.

You sure didn't act like you had.

 

Then please, tell me what Brandon meant when he said you had to be a splinter or shard to understand?  You don't get to ignore a quote because you don't like it, you have to provide a plausible alternate interpretation.

The only reason you would have to ignore Lyre's explanation is if it was totally implausible, which it clearly isn't, considering at least three other people agree with him.

 

It can't just be referring to 'people on scandriel' either, since there aren't any splinters on scandriel.

Brandon's spoken in hypotheticals before, Phantom. Saying you would need to be a Splinter does not mean that there are Splinters.

 

It is blatantly obvious that it is " realmatic theory " to which the 'must be a splinter or a shard' restriction applies. Not any particular theory. There is no other way to read that clause.

Obviously there are other ways to interpret that quote because every single other person who has posted so far disagrees with your interpretation. Perhaps that should say something to you.

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

Yes, I read that.  I just don't think it's at all supported by the quote.

 

 

It is blatantly obvious that it is " realmatic theory " to which the 'must be a splinter or a shard' restriction applies.  Not any particular theory.

 

 It can't just be referring to 'people on scandriel' either, since there aren't any splinters on scandriel.

 

So you admitting that you read it means you conveniently ignored it in your last post to make a jab at my integrity? I find that offensive.

 

Given that this is verbatim it's very plausible to relate Brandon's restriction to the Atium and Lerasium alloy. Only you interpreted it the way you have, are you saying multiple people all arriving at the same conclusion independently are wrong?

 

The fact is we don't know what Brandon truly intended with that statement. But we know that some of the characters that have understood the Realms have never been in a position to hold a Shard. You can make unsupported claims that they were touched by a Shard's mind but there's no evidence for it, so we're free to assume - by logical deduction - that Realmatic Theory has the possibility to be understood by normal people.

 

 

Most require an understanding of realmatic theory to comprehend, which you need to be a Shard or Splinter to even begin to understand."

 

Most. Referring to the theories of alloying Lerasium with Atium, a complex subject in Realmatic Theory that you'd need to be a Shard to understand. Why is that interpretation not valid?

Edited July 9, 2013 by Lyrebon

[Phantom Monstrosity]

Brandon's spoken in hypotheticals before, Phantom. Saying you would need to be a Splinter does not mean that there are Splinters.

 

Yes, but you're now assuming that he's talking about a hypothetical situation on a specific planet without ever mentioning that he's doing it.  That doesn't pass the sniff test at all.

 

 

Most. Referring to the theories of alloying Lerasium with Atium, a complex subject in Realmatic Theory that you'd need to be a Shard or Splinter to understand. Why is that interpretation not valid?

Because English doesn't work that way.  You're interpreting it ungrammatically.  The 'which' clearly indicates that we're referring to realmatic theory in the final clause.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Phantom Monstrosity

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

Yes, but you're now assuming that he's talking about a hypothetical situation on a specific planet without ever mentioning that he's doing it.  That doesn't pass the sniff test at all.

 

 

Because English doesn't work that way.  You're interpreting it ungrammatically.

 

In speech, grammatical rules are often dropped or misused. Related parts of speech don't conform to the set standards of written syntax which can be analysed and optimized. As I said before, these quotes are written ad verbatim, and still carry the same irregularities as spoken language.

 

Our interpretation is valid not just on these grounds however. As Windrunner has pointed out, Brandon speaks in rhetoric and hypothetical, possibly to generate mystery about his work. Besides, I'm not the only one to interpret it this way and I have no formal education in linguistics.

 

Also, congratulations on cherry picking both Windrunner's and my posts again. Maybe you should adhere to your own criticisms.

[Shardlet he/him]

Taking the tone down a notch, I'd like to point back to forging (not even Shai specifically).  Forging involves rewriting the history of an object or person in such a way as would be in harmony with the target's physical, cognitive, and spiritual self.  That means, to be a successful forger (such as is the case with Shai), one would need have a fairly intimate acquaintance with the interactions between the physical, cognitive, and spiritual aspects of a single object or entity.  It seems to me that, to be a successful forger (meaning above average skill), one must have at least a basic understanding of realmatic theory.

 

This, I believe would support the majority opinion on the quote interpretation.  I am inclined to agree with the majority on this one.  I get your point Phantom and your interpretation cannot be ignored.  It certainly appears to indicate your interpretation on its face.  But, I think there is some room for interpretation (particularly in view of evidence seen in the books.  The books are unalterable canon.  I'm not even saying that Brandon misspoke (though, that is a possibility).  Here is an extraordinarily hyperbolic example:  Assume Brandon said in an answer to a question that Kaladin was not bonded with a spren.  However, you know from reading TWoK that Kaladin is bonded with Syl and Syl is a spren.  Are you more inclined to ignore what you've read in the book, assume that Brandon misspoke, or find an alternative interpretation of the book or the quote in order to reconcile the two?

[Pechvarry]

Guys, what the heck?

downvoting, on this forum? Really?

It's not a crime to have a different opinion, and I'm seeing posts with downvotes where phantom is just making simple statements. It honestly looks petty.

I don't want to presume I'm entitled to any sort of moderator-like duty, but I think you guys (including you, phantom) need to step away from this.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Rubix
Watch the language

[Meg]

Actually, successor operations are 'basic' by your definition.  And I would argue that you don't have a basic understanding of math until you can do algebra.

 

Being able to perform arithmetical operations by rote (including going through a multiplication of

123x

100

and carefully writing down that 0 times 3 is 0 and 0 times 2 is zero and 0 times 3 is zero, then moving onto the next digit, and writing down again that 0 times 3 is 0 and 0 times 2 is zero and 0 times 3 is zero, and then moving onto the next digit, and writing that 1 times 3 is 3, and 1 times 2 is 2 and 1 times 1 is 1, then carefully going through and adding things together.  That's not understanding basic math, even if multiplication is necessary.

emphasizes mine (that quote is one example)

 

Guys, what the heck?

downvoting, on this forum? Really?

It's not a crime to have a different opinion, and I'm seeing posts with downvotes where phantom is just making simple statements. It honestly looks petty.

 

 

 

I admit that I did downvote the quoted post. Why? Because it's an insult against people. It's not about the topic and doesn't relate to the content of the discussion but is able to offend users of this forums, at least I feel offended by it and may be others too. 

[WeiryWriter he/him]

Guys, what the heck?

downvoting, on this forum? Really?

It's not a crime to have a different opinion, and I'm seeing posts with downvotes where phantom is just making simple statements. It honestly looks petty.

I don't want to presume I'm entitled to any sort of moderator-like duty, but I think you guys (including you, phantom) need to step away from this.

 

I very rarely give downvotes, only giving them when I feel they are warranted and I believe that the ones I gave in this thread are warranted.  The implication that I and the others who gave downvotes did it out of pettiness is frankly insulting.

 

Yes Phantom was making simple statements, and blatantly ignoring large portions of posts explaining the flaws in his reasoning.  He cherry picked  parts of our posts to respond to and neglected to even comment on the bulk of our arguments.

[Phantom Monstrosity]

Yes Phantom was making simple statements, and blatantly ignoring large portions of posts explaining the flaws in his reasoning.  He cherry picked  parts of our posts to respond to and neglected to even comment on the bulk of our arguments.

 

When someone starts their post with "Word of god, or your opinion?", referencing a single post of mine fourteen posts back without any other part of the ongoing discussion, after I've supplied the Word of God, I think I'm justified in saying 'I just posted it dude' without doing an in-depth dissection of the post.  Maybe they left the post box open for a couple hours before hitting 'reply', and need to catch up on the thread first.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Phantom Monstrosity

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

When someone starts their post with "Word of god, or your opinion?", referencing a single post of mine fourteen posts back without any other part of the argument, after I've supplied the Word of God, I think I'm justified in saying 'I just posted it dude' without doing an in-depth dissection of the post.  Maybe they left the post box open for a couple hours before hitting 'reply', and need to catch up on the thread first.

 

Actually, I was quoting your interpretation of Brandon's answer. It was a genuine question not intended to hurt or slander you. If you took it as offensive then you misinterpreted it, not me. If you had a problem with the way it was phrased you should have drawn attention to your concern then.

 

I have very dutifully, and very comprehensively addressed every point you have made. Unlike yourself who has ignored several points made by not just me, but everyone else in this thread. If you felt I was being terse then why did you treat everyone else who was trying to have a discussion with you under the same pretense?

 

This thread is going to get moderator intervention soon and I've said everything within limits that I need to.