1. Another story competition is beginning! (Q1 2018)

    "You're bleeding on my floor."

    We've moved to a quarterly format, so you really have no excuse not to participate this time.

    So check out the new thread discussing scoring, rules, and other such matters in the in the Story Competitions forum and get cracking.

    Dismiss Notice

Wizards v. Muggles Megathread

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Xiph0, Mar 7, 2016.

  1. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,112
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    The point is that we can extrapolate general rules from what we have seen in canon, and JKR further has commented on Pottermore and in interview on the matter to provide further general rules. If we can extrapolate how the shield charm works in general, we don't need to see every circumstance to know how the shield charm will act in that circumstance. We just have to apply the general rule.

    Further, on the burden of proof issue, you say that because we have yet to see a wizard "tank an explosion" with a shield charm, that puts the burden on those who say that they can. This seems to me to be a reversal of the normal burden of proof. We know that the shield charm protects from things in general: it is up to you to demonstrate that an explosion is an exception.

    The reason why Sauce Boss is not going into the full argument is that it's a very long argument. But here it is, if you are genuinely interested.
     
  2. GreatRedDragon

    GreatRedDragon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    You can think that way, but power-scaling doesn't work that way, in order to say a Wizard can survive such and such, he has to be proven to be capable to survive such and such. We can't make assumptions on spells we haven't seen or powers we don't know for said spells. So far we've seen Protego block Legillimency to a point, Hexes, Jinxes, Charms. Coincidentally we have seen that a Blasting Curse can destroy a Wand.

    Things in general, is a very generalised statement, however. If I told you I can survive things in general, that doesn't automatically mean I can survive an explosion, it takes a serious leap in logic to get from one to another. I'm making comments on what we have seen.

    Wizards are limited to saying words for spells, even non-verbally they must still state the spell in their mind, this means that any Magic system where characters can enhance their physiology to FTE speeds (Fate/Stay Night, Highschool DxD, Dresden, The Magicians), makes Harry Potter characters irrelevant, as they are still physically muggles.

    Next, they also have Magical Laws and Theory that they follow, they can't create food, there are apparently other limitations to Elemental Transfiguration, etc... Overall, maybe the HP Wizards would win in a fight against their own Muggles, but not our Muggles or any other Magicals from different universes, short of a few outliers.
     
  3. Sauce Bauss

    Sauce Bauss Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,025
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    So yeah, that's a thing.
     
  4. GreatRedDragon

    GreatRedDragon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Is there a JK Rowling character in any of the seven HP books?
     
  5. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,112
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    We're not making assumptions, we're providing evidence-based arguments. I linked the full argument and evidence in my previous post. If you are unwilling to engage with the argument then it is you who is doing the assuming.

    Also, we have seen the shield charm block physical objects.

    The delicacy of wands and of wizards themselves (also note: wizards are not physiologically identical to Muggles) is irrelevant, because you have to get through their magical defences in order to affect them. So the crux of the argument remains the strength of those magical defences, not what happens to a wizard if the defences are breached.

    Reaction times are also somewhat off the point given that you can cast spells in advance. But on that front it should be noted that wizards do have faster reaction times than Muggles - on more than one occassion we are told a character draws their wand faster than the eye can follow.

    This is just a terrible argument. You cannot survive things in general. You are not a shield.

    I'm not quite sure how you think this is a decent argument. "Magic follows rules therefore it is weak". Uh, no. Whether magic is weak depends on the content of those rules. And there's no sign that the rules of HP magic pay any attention at all to quantity of physical energy or force. Not only has JKR explicitly stated that magic is able to overrule nature, but observe the following features of the magic system:

    1. Magic treats a job position as a real thing that can be interacted with (DADA curse).

    2. Magic treats words as real things that can be interacted with (Taboo).

    3. Magic treats information as a real thing that can be interacted with (Fidelius).

    4. The human concept of food forms a part of the rules of magic (Exceptions to Gamp's Law)

    5. The human concept of the difference between Squibs and Muggles (both of which have absolutely no magic, but which occupy different social categories) is sufficient to render Hogwarts visible to Squibs but not to Muggles.

    6. Magic generally operates by teleological causation, with spells being defined by what they achieve rather than how they achieve it (i.e. Unplottable Charm makes things incapable of being placed on maps, Killing Curse makes things dead without any cause of death).

    All these things point strongly towards magic operating on a conceptual rather than physical basis.

    Even if that does not persuade you, and you insist on the idea that magic can be overcome by a sufficient quantity of physical energy, your argument is still screwed, because HP magic routinely performs feats which would require absolutely massive amounts of energy:

    1. Time travel.

    2. Manipulation of space.

    3. Creation and destuction of matter in large enough quantities (kilograms) that the energy required is more than the largest ever nuclear bomb. And they do this casually without even a hint of being tired out by it.

    So your position is wrong either way. Either:

    A) Wizards operate by overruling nature, in which case the energy of an explosion is an irrelevant consideration to whether wizards can defend from it, or

    B) Wizards operate within physical nature, in which case they have access to sufficient quantities of energy that a nuclear bomb looks like a Duracell battery in comparison.
     
  6. GreatRedDragon

    GreatRedDragon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Is this an objective piece of information, or something the narrator says to make us think, "Hey, this guy just drew his wand really fast."

    Are you seriously arguing that shields are designed to survive everything? Shields dent, break, crack, etc... Just because we haven't seen the shield charm do so in canon, doesn't mean the shield charm can't be broken or dented. Plus it only operates in one direction.

    Take a shot every time Taure says, "Hey man is that seriously your argument?"

    With the help of Magical Objects.

    Not really, they manipulate their personal space from the looks of it.

    Examples of either? I've yet to see a Wizard totally destroy or totally create anything, vanishment is just sending matter into everything according to McGonagall and Conjuration can only be done with inorganic materials. Also, doing something with the energy of a nuke suddenly makes you have the ability to survive a nuke???
     
  7. 99redbloons

    99redbloons Second Year

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2016
    Messages:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nottingham
    High Score:
    0
    This seems slightly hypocritical as your argument earlier was that because we'd never seen a shield charm take a missile therefore it is impossible. But here you'e saying that even though we've never seen the shield charm break it must be possible.
     
  8. GreatRedDragon

    GreatRedDragon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    It's pretty much the same argument I've been stating the entire time, we haven't seen it tank something, therefore we can't be sure it will hold up to that certain something. It's just rephrasing my argument.
     
  9. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,112
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    If you start down the route of unreliable narrator then everything in canon becomes questionable and all discussion becomes pointless, because there is no standard of correctness. So I'm happy to admit that unreliable narrator can be a thing, but if that's the route you want to take then we should stop this discussion now.

    No, I'm arguing that your argument by analogy between yourself and a shield completely failed because there is no analogy between yourself and a shield.

    Also, FYI, in canon the shield charm is not mono-directional. Its shape changes depending on the wishes of the caster, e.g. in DH Harry cast a wall-like shield separating himself and Voldemort from the crowd around them.

    Er, yes? Not sure what your point is here. Magical objects were created with magic by wizards.

    You're going to have to expand on that. The distinction between "space" and "personal space" is... novel.

    The prime example is the Aguamenti Charm, which creates a large stream of water which we know can be used as drinking water, so it must be permanent and real. This easily creates kilograms of matter.

    More generally, however, any transfiguration (which we know to be permanent unless reversed, and to alter things at their fundamental level, not merely as an illusion - at the "molecular level", in JKR's own words) will inevitably alter a thing's mass. E.g. in PS, turning the desk into the pig will definitely have altered the mass of the object significantly.

    FYI, conjuration can definitely be done with organic materials. Hermione conjured a flock of birds in HBP.

    However, I was not referencing Transfiguration Conjuration, as we know that objects conjured within transfiguration are made of "non-being" rather than being genuine physical objects, and that they do not last. But note that this does not apparently apply to Charms Conjuration, which operates by different rules (e.g. Gamp's law and exceptions are particular to Transfiguration and do not apply to Charms, which we know can e.g. create food, which we saw Molly do in GoF, in addition to the Aguamenti Charm above).

    Well, firstly I should make clear that I favour the first of the two options - that magic operates by overruling and ignoring physical nature, not by having a buttload of energy.

    However, if one were to entertain the energy idea, then you would need two things to survive a nuke:

    1. An appropriate spell for the task you wish to perform.

    2. Sufficient energy to power that spell for the task you wish to perform.

    In the case of defending from a nuke, wizards have the appropriate spell (shield charm) and the appropriate energy.
     
  10. GreatRedDragon

    GreatRedDragon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Multiple Wizards.

    Personal Space meaning they manipulate themselves, Space meaning they manipulate Space.

    Looks more like it changes size in that example.

    Do we know that it creates the Water from nothing?

    Well it's not Conjuration, it was a Charm. As a Law of Conjuration is that you can't make food, therefore you can't make anything organic, and such is true as we haven't seen a person use Transfiguration to make anything organic, therefore it's safe to assume that Charms only make temporary things. Do we know if these birds weren't constructs? How do we know that they're actual birds? Does this mean Wizards can create souls?
     
  11. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,112
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    The rebuttal to all your arguments is provided in the document I already linked. I recommend you read it. The whole purpose of that document is bypassing the need to repeat arguments.

    In the meantime, however:

     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2018
  12. 99redbloons

    99redbloons Second Year

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2016
    Messages:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nottingham
    High Score:
    0
    Didn't McGonagall turn her desk to a pig and back again in the first transfiguration lesson as an example of what a master of the art could do?
     
  13. Ninclow

    Ninclow Fourth Year

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    131
    High Score:
    0
    Uh - what you said was, and I quote: "No feats suggesting it can, therefore it can't."

    • Argument from ignorance: It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
    • Hitchen's Razor: Formulated thus: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without.
    Which of the two fits the best to your choice of words in your ears?

    Considering that he/she was not actually attacking you to undermine your opinion, but attacking the opinion itself because he/she found it to be illogical (as I do, though I daresay I am doing a decent job trying to be polite about it), I would argue they aren't. Though it still wasn't needed.

    Well, that depends on what you mean by "magical nature", I suppose. Lightening strikes through the window of the Gryffindor Tower at midnight, setting parts the room on fire. The students wakes and puts it out with jets of water from their wands. Effectively, magic just trumped nature. Of course, I may have misunderstood you, making my argument invalid?

    All magic systems have weaknesses and limitations, they just differ...