Ripheus23

He is bound to Roshar, at least.

Would be a great twist, though when/where/why, not sure. Surely if Nightblood is of her power, she should be Connected to the remnant of Ruin therein, to some degree? Or would the flow not work? Maybe Endowment is Trell and is attacking Scadrial due to being warped during/because of the creation of Nightblood, during which she herself mediated the absorption of Ruin's Investiture, imprinting something of that Investiture on her? EDIT: And it's Scadrial that's under attack (and not just *some* world) because that's where Ruin was focused.

The idea usually goes: take some sentence that's just floating about, that merely reads, "This sentence is false." Like there's a piece of paper and this is all that's on it, and the paper is fluttering around in the wind. But so anyway, this self-floating self-false sentence, is it true or false? If it's true, it is what it says it is. But it says that it's false, wherefore... Next, if it's false, then it is what it says it is, and when a sentence is what it says it is, it's true... Or is it? [The following I have also, with some edits upward here, posted on Philosophy Stack Exchange.] I noticed something about the liar paradox, when the liar sentences are taken as questions. Let’s start with the liar index, “This sentence is false.” Allow this to be questioned: “Is this sentence false?” Now, if this is a yes-or-no question, then saying, “No,” amounts to reinterpreting the sentence as, “No, this sentence is not false; it’s true.” But if the sentence now says that it is true, and since that sentence would not be false if it were true, it follows that the transformed sentence in question does not have a contradictory truth-value. The liar sentences are transcendentally disjunctive with honest sentences. In other words, the liar index is logically interchangeable with the honest index, as such (more on this in a little). Next, take the recursive liar, “L: L is false.” As a question this would be, “L: L is false?” However, L in that case would be a question, and questions are not truth-apt as such. The recursive liar lacks an erotetic value. Another example would be the liar loop, “The next sentence is true; the previous sentence is false.” But if either of the sentences is taken as a question, the loop halts: “The next sentence is true; is the previous sentence false?” doesn’t work since “is the previous sentence false?” is a question, so “The next sentence” does not refer to something that is truth-apt, now. Let’s also consider the liar imperative. This comes from the epistemic-imperative theory of erotetic logic, where a question is converted into an epistemic imperative. Here, “L: Is L false?” = “L: Let me know whether L is false.” But L in this event is an imperative: again, a kind of sentence that is neither true nor the opposite of true (false), but just “not true” in the abstract. (I think there's a related analysis of, "Don't comply with this imperative," which is complied with if and only if it is not complied with, vs., "Comply with the imperative, 'Do x'" being reducible just to, "Do x" in the same way that, "It is truth that X," reduces to the straight assertion that X. But I can't remember how to "do it" (solve the problem) right now. It shows up in Hofstadter's GEB as, "I wish that this wish would not be granted," for whatever that's worth.) I wrote an essay on the topic once where I covered a few more examples IIRC and they all go pretty much the same way. For example, trying to work out the liar disquotation ("This sentence is false," is true if and only if this sentence is false) can be used to exactly describe how saying "no" to the liar index converts it into the honest one (i.e. how (false:not true):no "goes to" true:true; it's a kind of subtle double-negation elimination that ends up with: "This sentence is false," is false if and only if, "This sentence is true," is true). Tarski’s model of levels of truth-predication therefore holds as a two-place relation, between questions and answers in general. That is, since the liar sentences are “unquestionable,” if we accepted them (believed them), we would be using them as unquestionable axioms. The problem, then, is that the liar sentences are not answers to questions, so they have no erotetic form of truth, which would be the alternative truth-predicate of a t1/t2/...-predicate model. NOTE: I am not arguing that the liar sentences are “meaningless.” The liar index is certainly not meaningless: it has an entirely regular use in natural language, as in saying the sentence while pointing at some other false sentence to which “This” actually refers, e.g. pointing at a written token of, “2 + 2 = 22,” and saying, “This sentence is false.” (Moreover, the existence of this natural usage is what allows us to commit to an equivalent "This" in the interior and exterior of the liar disquotation, instead of saying, "'This sentence is false,' is true if and only if that sentence is false." This haecceitic quasi-copying is allowable on the ground that the liar indexicals have to be adjudged only as sentence-tokens: the sentence-type is truth-inapt, since it does not actually refer enough to be evaluated as such.) My last question, then, is: is this the solution to the liar paradox?

There's a WoB that says the extra burst of power Windrunners get per Oath has something to do with the relationship between Bondsmiths and Windrunners. So imagine if Dalinar had a battalion of Windrunners ready for that extra burst... I was speculating on a dire situation that might call for a move like that. EDIT: @Truthwatcher_17.5 there is this WoB: Questioner Would Allomancy affect Shardplate or Shardblades? Brandon Sanderson It cannot affected Shardblades. Well, "cannot" is a strong word. Things with innate investiture are much more difficult to affect with any of the magics at all. Which is why it's very hard, for instance-- Szeth is not able to bind people, or Lash people wearing Shardplate to the ceiling. In the same Allomancy would not be able to Push on it without some help. Duralumin and a really strong [Steel]Push could probably do it. Questioner I was just wondering if it's actually metal. Brandon Sanderson Oh yes. It is metal-ish... it is metal enough for Allomancy to work on it. https://wob.coppermind.net/events/161/#e6927 EDIT 2: Also there is a WoB, I wasn't sure about all that it said but it seemed to imply that Cultivation's godmetal is in the Blades too. Like there's a ratio, except Sanderson also said the role of the highspren complicates that description/analogy. Also I found one that said the Recreance affected Plate differently and less. So my idea is that not Plate being destroyed and recreated, but by dishonorable people, is what damaged Honor. Lastly, I think the Fourth Ideal of the Windrunners is a copy of the vow of Honor himself, and the having of Plate by other Orders of Knights is a squire-like effect but between the Orders overall, maybe?

It's possible but would it be as tragic? Then again maybe it's already beyond tragedy for Hoid and Rayse not to be friends.

Yeah I came up with a different theory, this singer evolution idea was too vague...

The Shardblades are made of godmetal, what if Plate is too? This is my theory: Honor himself swore to humanity, via Nohadon, to protect them if they themselves swore what became the Fourth Ideal for whichever order. By this he meant that he would commit his Physical essence not just to fighting but pure protection, as armor. The involved highspren/lesser spren are imitating something, then. Namely, just as the Heralds form a "protective barrier" in the Cognitive Realm, the spren become Physically protective. There's a special equality with the Windrunners where their highspren are directly of the godmetal, as well as the spren who heal Plate as it gets damaged. In the other cases besides the pure Cultivation case, the associated spren only are healers of Plate, like the vow of the Heralds causes them to be recreated after being destroyed, over and over. However, this would explain how Honor died, too. Kind of like how ... Honor, after the Recreance, had the mirrors of his promise being destroyed over and over by the malicious civilizations that succeeded the Knights Radiant, and Odium somehow contaminated Honor such that Tanavast started to actually die because of the Plate being abused. Why Odium? If the binding by the Heralds is akin to the deeper binding of Odium, I think Odium was able to seal Honor in the Plate to some degree, in a counterstrike. So one Bondsmith matches to the Windrunners, the one for the Stormfather, since he is THE honorspren. Let's suppose Ishar's army gets a hold of the missing Shardhorde and Dalinar's forces had the foresight to have their Windrunners all swear a new Ideal on the battlefield, at the same time, who might win?

Mmm if Cultivation likes vines then Honor must've liked memes

The three Realms remind me of Kant's remark that went something like, "Thus all knowledge begins with perceptions, goes to concepts, and ends with ideas, beyond which, however, we cannot go." This would be why, appearances notwithstanding, the Spiritual Realm is not the Beyond. Kant puts free will, the afterlife, and God into his Beyond of noumena, and Sanderson said something in a WoB once that almost sounds like an inside joke about Kant's writing style, so... EDIT: okay he didn't say "beyond which we cannot go" in that passage but something like "for us nothing is higher than the ideal" EDIT 2: But the section of the first Critique that goes over the phenomena/noumena difference is akin to what Sanderson says about "inside"/Beyond, although not stipulated for the narrative. However, I'm pretty confident that an LDS writer with a knowledge of abstract philosophy has special reasons for deciding not to try to encode an absolute proof of God or a Savior or what, into the cosmere's story. (There's also a weird tangent connecting the LDS with Kant's doctrine of grace: both say that grace comes after all that we can do [of virtue].)

Then the orbit of the cosmere-stars must be whack... Like microbes twirling through a bloodstream, maybe...

My main ? has to do with ethics, here. I could see Sanderson trying to straddle the divide Kant did when trying to say "we know we have free will in the strong sense" alongside "but free will in itself goes beyond knowledge," along with whatever moral rules might or might not be derivative of this paradox. At least, Sanderson seems sensitive to the details of abstract ethics debate to outline an approach to the topic or something.

This is what I think likely, though IRL I wonder if we can know answers to transcendent questions and if so, whether we would know so in time for Sanderson to, too. I tend to agree with Kant here but I still wonder, like sometimes it seems as if God might have "spoken" to people, so what if *they* know? But then again that would be private knowledge (another subtle option: the Beyond is knowable but only privately, so no public proof is possible as such).

So instead of what I said being debated, my supposed tone is? Doesn't that seem finicky and irrelevant?

I understand that my tone might make it sound like I'm accusing Sanderson of lying or something, except I then explained my actual point, so...

I didn't think of it that way... I think I let my wishes for MB4 get in the way of my sense of Sanderson's actual story haha

What if it was like when Lord Foul was defeated at the end of the first/second Covenant trilogy? Or like, he gets expelled from Roshar and can't come back, but he can still regenerate or what, maybe? And fight elsewhere?

Weird idea, but there's a WoB that says Rayse and Hoid were friends. If Hoid is the endgame protagonist, it would be poignant, maybe, for a friend of his as such to be the endgame antagonist? Also, can't remember if a Vessel can survive a deSharding, but what if they can, Rayse is SA-defeated by losing Odium, so it's not as Odium that he is the threat later? Or if Vessels die without a Shard, maybe the twist is that Rayse has Odium replaced. So, like, he is made to relinquish Odium but take up a reforged Honor...

Did I say you were wrong? You seemed to jump into the discussion as if it was some debate about some WoB, all by itself, when in all actuality, all along, I said: I'm pretty sure it's not my fault that you didn't read my posts, and I doubt that your decision not to read my posts makes me an idiot...

You mean besides the fact that he already retconned the afterlife remark Harmony made in HoA? Besides the fact that people change their beliefs over time, all the time? Besides the fact that philosophical debate is especially conducive to changes in belief about things like the Beyond, which are philosophical issues? One WoB trumps normal reality? But @Pathfinder yeah, the joking tone of the OP signaled that the thread idea was more what-if than a prediction. The only prediction I made was that the Beyond will be openly debated in some book and that Sanderson would probably not assert direct knowledge of the actual Beyond, but indirect knowledge related to its pure possibility, still consistent in any event with the WoB in question. Sheesh!

I'm pretty sure I don't have the ability to predict whether someone will make a minor adjustment to their philosophical worldview 25 years from now, and if someone else claimed that ability, I would be suspicious. IOW there's no real way to know, unless we assume that Sanderson only says things that are true or correct or infallible or whatever. Also, even if Hoid isn't all-knowing, don't you think he has reasons for believing what he believes? @Truthwatcher_17.5 what do you mean by 'evidence' or what do you think I'm even arguing about?

Augh, I *almost* got it haha. I like the logic one too

The WoB doesn't count as evidence that he won't change his mind, though. And the fact that Sanderson is philosophically articulate is evidence that he *can* change his mind.

There's a theory based on The Traveler IIRC about whether Hoid wants to bring someone back from Beyond. If that was true, Hoid probably has a reason to think there is a Beyond, and that it's at least worth trying to bring someone back from it. Then there's his convo with Jasnah about God. So, when we finally get a massive Hoid POV section of text, I imagine there could be a debate about the Beyond. And even if the answer is still 'we don't know the answer,' I think this will be shown instead of told to us. Sanderson being as knowledgeable as he is, I can see him bringing up the incompleteness doctrine in mathematics, or Kantian idealism, or whatever. But there won't just be a flat claim that the Beyond is unknowable. And in the meantime, maybe Sanderson will learn an argument in philosophy that adjusts his definition of the question.

Well I'm glad we discovered how to read people's minds in the distant future but sadly I personally lack that power so I'm going to be more realistic and admit that Sanderson can change his mind. Oh and since this has escaped the convo radar, I did qualify my question by pointing out a sophisticated adjustment to his Beyond position, that Sanderson could make, without violating his position.