Will Nightblood become Adonalsium?

[Ripheus23]

Just now, Scion of the Mists said:

I was just responding because you questioned whether or not the Shards still existed (which they do).  

That depends on what you mean by "still existed." Were they rendered unto destruction in nihilo? No. But that's because creation ex nihilo doesn't exist(!) in the Cosmere universe, either. Realmatics works off the rearranging-preexistent-substance model/concept of creation and, by comparison, destruction: rearrange an object's pieces enough and the object no longer exists. Some of the Shards' pieces have been "rearranged" so much, so to say, that in that sense, they don't exist.

[Scion of the Mists]

7 minutes ago, Ripheus23 said:

That depends on what you mean by "still existed." Were they rendered unto destruction in nihilo? No. But that's because creation ex nihilo doesn't exist(!) in the Cosmere universe, either. Realmatics works off the rearranging-preexistent-substance model/concept of creation and, by comparison, destruction: rearrange an object's pieces enough and the object no longer exists. Some of the Shards' pieces have been "rearranged" so much, so to say, that in that sense, they don't exist.

Okay then, I guess we're not on the same page.  The Shards still exist, even if they've been Splintered.  It might not be easy to reassemble them into what they once were, but they're still there.  They're still powering magic systems; the seons/spren are still around; Dalinar "ascended" in some fashion.  

I think the large majority of people would subscribe to the standard definition of "exist."  I'm not sure why you would adopt an uncommon, non-standard definition and then argue with people about semantics.  

 

Side not: actual destruction does exist in the Cosmere: things that "go beyond" are never coming back.  

[Ripheus23]

8 hours ago, Scion of the Mists said:

I think the large majority of people would subscribe to the standard definition of "exist."  I'm not sure why you would adopt an uncommon, non-standard definition and then argue with people about semantics.  

Does Adonalsium still exist? Does Shattering equal destroying? True, "things that 'go beyond' are never coming back," but that's in reference to something Sanderson is leaving super-ambiguous (the afterlife), like, it's possible that there's not a real "Beyond," the threshold is just a limit on knowledge that allows Jasnah's atheism to rationally coexist with the ardents' theism.

Quote

Brandon Sanderson

... One element I can talk about is the need for the Cosmere to have questions that will go unanswered. This is most expressly manifest in the "big" questions. Is there a God? What is the actual afterlife like, if there really is one? Is there such a thing as a soul, and are cognitive shadows the actual person, or a manifestation of the magic imitating a person's thought processes?

The reason I don't answer these as myself (though characters certainly have ideas) is because I feel it important the text not undermine the characters who choose not to believe in these things. Though I think I've found answers in life, people rationally disagree with me--and to express only my worldview in the books would severely hamper my ability to have characters who disagree with me, and other characters.

In short, if I were to say, "Yes, there's an all-powerful God" then it would directly undermine characters like Jasnah, who argue otherwise. At the same time, I want characters like Kelsier to develop naturally, and do things that are in line with how sometimes, religions develop on our world, without having it be a statement. (Or, at least one other than, "Hey, this happens some time on our world. It happened here too.")

Fantasy offers some unique opportunities to explore the human condition with religion, and I want to take advantage of that, to see where it takes me and to see what I can learn from the process.

source

 

[tiedyeddino]

On 17.1.2019 at 5:44 AM, Ripheus23 said:

Does Adonalsium still exist? Does Shattering equal destroying? True, "things that 'go beyond' are never coming back," but that's in reference to something Sanderson is leaving super-ambiguous (the afterlife), like, it's possible that there's not a real "Beyond," the threshold is just a limit on knowledge that allows Jasnah's atheism to rationally coexist with the ardents' theism.

I have always figured it like for example IKEA furniture. If you have all the pieces of a chair in front of you, you do have a chair, it just needs to be assembled. However if 16 guys break into your house, beat you up and each one steals a few pieces of said chair, you no longer have a chair. Neither do any of the individual people who broke in. One has a chair leg, another has the seat etc.

So unless large chunks of a Shard are separated from each other, i would consider the shard still exists, it just isn't intact. If a lot of people pick up the pieces and move away from the bulk of the shattered investiture, the shard would stop existing (though possible to still reunite).