Mistborn 3 Annotations Discussion *Spoilers*

[Tegal Savian]

I'm trying to jump into this discussion, but much of that which I've read herein thus far seems somewhat rather speculative (despite that some is based on either historical facts or fantastical derivations, rather than actual occurrences) and might be refuted by the unknown as any given storyline progresses.  Granted, I'm not in any way expressing an opinion based on factual information!  I've none to offer!  Not yet, anyway!  Please ... do enlighten me further!

[happyman]

An opinion I hold which I think separates magic from science is that magic is inherently unknowable through science.  It's effects and causes cannot be derived through known physics.  That does not mean that magic doesn't have rules, far from it, simply that these rules are incompatible with scientific law on a very basic level.  While their effects may be measurable according to scientific principles (a rock thrown with magic will still be stopped by a wall), but the essential things that make them up cannot.

This is interesting.  I've never really thought deeply about this subject before, and I like this attempt to delineate between science and magic, but I have several quibbles  with this definition, and would like to ask a few questions.

What does "Magic is inherently unknowable through science" actually mean to you, Fireborn?  How do you limit "science" such that it can't study magic, assuming it is remotely regular and empirically observable?  What does it mean to be  deeply incompatible with scientific laws on a deep level when so-called "scientific laws" are simply the regularities observed in the universe as we have seen it so far?

It seems to me that a lot of people, including in this thread, somehow treat "Science" as a branch of knowledge fundamentally distinct from other ways of knowing things.  It isn't.  Science is a deeply human field, as well as a natural field, and it takes the world as it is given.  Most of what really distinguishes science from other fields are the careful checks and balances on what needs to be done in order for something to be considered known, but does not limit the fields of study or what is actually possible, as long as it can be systematically repeated.

[Fireborn]

An opinion I hold which I think separates magic from science is that magic is inherently unknowable through science.  It's effects and causes cannot be derived through known physics.  That does not mean that magic doesn't have rules, far from it, simply that these rules are incompatible with scientific law on a very basic level.  While their effects may be measurable according to scientific principles (a rock thrown with magic will still be stopped by a wall), but the essential things that make them up cannot.

This is interesting.  I've never really thought deeply about this subject before, and I like this attempt to delineate between science and magic, but I have several quibbles  with this definition, and would like to ask a few questions.

What does "Magic is inherently unknowable through science" actually mean to you, Fireborn?  How do you limit "science" such that it can't study magic, assuming it is remotely regular and empirically observable?  What does it mean to be  deeply incompatible with scientific laws on a deep level when so-called "scientific laws" are simply the regularities observed in the universe as we have seen it so far?

It seems to me that a lot of people, including in this thread, somehow treat "Science" as a branch of knowledge fundamentally distinct from other ways of knowing things.  It isn't.  Science is a deeply human field, as well as a natural field, and it takes the world as it is given.  Most of what really distinguishes science from other fields are the careful checks and balances on what needs to be done in order for something to be considered known, but does not limit the fields of study or what is actually possible, as long as it can be systematically repeated.

Well, I think of magic as being made of different stuff, such that it exists on a different level from matter that makes it direct observation impossible.  It's only when you get large amounts of magic together and watch how it reacts with normal matter (say, through allomancy?) that you can really observe it all.

And to be clear, when I say science I mean natural laws like physics that have simply been observed by scientific processes.  So, theoretically, magic could fit into science, it would simply exist under a different umbrella from other things.

[Ari54]

This is certainly something I've thought about in my own writing.

For me, the line between "hard" or "speculative" magic and fantastic science (ie. science that is inconsistent with how our world works) is whether the phenomenon we're talking about can be defined in terms of our existing physical universe.

If it's only definable or measurable by other magic, it's fantasy. If you can quantify it or qualify it physically in some potential alternative universe, then it's fantastic science. It's obviously a given that there also needs to be an internally consistent set of rules for fantastic science, but on its own I would contend that an internally-consistent system of rules is not enough to make something scientific. Real-world religions have internally-consistent rules, but we don't regard them as rigorous scientific theories. They also need to be falsifiable- that is, measurable and definable on a physical level.

Interestingly, this certainly defines psychic powers as magical, even though they're a long-standing part of science fiction tradition. (Also, it makes the Force into something of a fantastic science, assuming you don't try to fan-retcon out the midichlorians)

[Chaos]

While interesting, this really feels like a divergence from the real topic at hand--the MB3 annotations. Maybe an intrepid moderator can split the topic into something new.

I want to get this back on track a little, since I reread Chapter 79's annotation and I picked up a detail that I don't think has been mentioned.

The author is right in that Preservation did need someone to control its power, and it did seek for a host in which to invest itself. It began this search with what mind it had left about sixteen years before the return of the power to the Well of Ascension, just as it began a search for a new host before the return of the power the previous time.

Unfortunately, just as Ruin took control and manipulated Alendi, he took control and manipulated Vin.

I was not explicitly aware that Preservation had chosen Alendi, much like he chose Vin, as a recipient of the power. Also it is interesting that Preservation chose Vin sixteen years before the Well returned to power. Sixteen...

[Drew P]

I noticed the 16 as well. I assumed it was quite intentional, but what it means....I got nothing.

[Nightfire107]

was vin 15 or 16 when she began to hear the pulses?

[Chaos]

was vin 15 or 16 when she began to hear the pulses?

I think she's older than 16 by the end Final Empire or Well of Ascension. The chronology is a difficult thing in Brandon's books.

I feel that this is really, really important: (MB3 C. 55 annotation)

That did not weaken his power, which still protects the world. Instead, it cost him his mind, leaving behind only a faint shadow—like the mists' memory of Preservation, far removed from what he had once been.

That consciousness attached to Preservation—like the one attached to Ruin—is a part of Adonalsium, which will eventually be explained.

Not the power. The consciousness attached to Preservation is a part of Adonalsium.

Interesting.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Um, I'd better ask Brandon if that's what he meant to write.

[Chaos]

Good idea. I'm a little concerned about that myself.

[Valkynphyre]

Um, I'd better ask Brandon if that's what he meant to write.

 

[Tasslehoof]

Random outside-the-box thinking here, but if Inquisitors (who weren't originally allomancers) had children (why don't we see any female Inquisitors anyway?), would they be more likely to be allomancers?

Probably not, but it's an interesting thought. If it is true, we might see some children of Marsh (unlikely) that have powers. Who knows, maybe the mistborn from the next trilogy might be his son/daughter.

One more random thought. I say that at some point in the next trilogy, the hero will guiltily hemalurgically spike a dying man, in order to try and defeat the villain.

It would make the most sense to me, that if Brandon writes another series dealing with this stuff... he'll probably do it with Spook as the center, or Spook's kids (I'm pretty sure him and Beldre get married).  Although, a darker Marsh-centered book would be quite interesting..  I know it seems like he died in the book, but I can't really recall it saying that he did specifically.. I may have to go back and look over it again.  I would assume he did, but you never know... he was quite twisted by Ruin (even by Inquisitor standards).

[Comatose]

At the beginning of the first book Vin is sixteen (pg 32 in the hardcover).  Each book takes place over the course of about a year, and a year passes inbetween each book, thus at the start of the second book she is 18 or close too it, and by the last book she somewhere around 20.

Inquisitors were never female, because they were all taken from the preithood, which was, for all we know, exclusively male.  Don't see any female obligators either.

I remember discovering somewhere that inquisitors can't breed?  I know they don't breed true as their own species, as mistwraiths do, and the koloss when Sazed is done with them.

[firstRainbowRose]

Um... sorry to correct you here, but per the man himself, there are female inquisitors.  Also, he has said that they can in fact breed like a normal person.

The second trilogy will be set 1,000 (ish) years in the future.  So basically mistings and such in the modern world.

[Comatose]

Really?  Interesting.  Thanks for the correction.  You wouldn't happen to have a link by any chance?
As for the breeding thing, I guess that was just another of my false memories, sorry guys... there's a lot of them.
I know I got Vin's age right.  Looked that up.