However every object has a memory. Wouldn't the object try to return back to its old self. Distorting the new object.

 

No.

If I turn a cup into a cat, then it is now a cat, whatever it may have been previously. There is nothing to make it spontaniously turn into a cup. It would be just as random as a naturally-born cat suddenly turning into a cup.

 

I agree with probably everything you said, but when the wizard reverts the animal to it's previous object form, is it a full transfiguration spell, or is there an easier way to do it? I would go for the former, but somehow canon always gave me the impression that it was a bit easier the other way around, and the objects allways seem to revert to exactly the same form, not from one teacup to another slightly different one.

 

There is mention of "Untransfiguration" in canon. It's not really clear if this is a reversal of the previous spell, or simply the name given to a second transfiguration that works in the opposite direction.

I suspect the first, though the second is possible.

As for difficulty...it's up in the air. In many ways, you might say that Untransfiguration is harder, because not only do you have to perform the transfiguration but you also have to magically divine what you're supposed to be turning it back into.

 

Yeah that is a good point. The spell must have a constant binding effect on something because you dont transfigure it again to revert you just stop the spell.

 

I don't believe that that was the point that he was making.

And there's nothing to suggest that Untransfiguration is a cancelling of a spell. Indeed, the name itself suggests that you are reversing a process, rather than simply cancelling it.

 

How can you reverse a spell, when the object itself has no memory of its former life. There is no magical force still present on the object. In your eye's it is a new object with no qualities of its previous life.

Therefore to reverse you would then have to retransfigure the new object. Yet are you not doing this from memory of what the object looks like, which should mean it wont be exactly the same as t was before.

 

Magic can be used to see the future. I'm sure there's some way to see the past, and since the past has already happened, it's probably far more reliable than divination. I should imagine that to Untransfigure you cast some sort of spell to figure out what the object once was and then transfigure it into this thing. Yes, nothing of the old object remains within the attributes of the new object, but that doesn't mean you can't see what the object used to be using some magical means. The object may have "no memory" of its "previous life", but a human can.

 

Except if, as Taure suggest, you 'magically divine' what it was previously, which seems a bit of a long shot. I think this is another thing JKR really hasn't much bothered with. In any case I very much doubt you can 'finite' a transfigured object, but it could be that there is some sort of magical imprint left on the object by the spell and that you can do the reverse spell by printing an opposite or something. A slightly different possibility, which Taure might like a little better, is that all the information you need to do the reverse spell was needed to do the initial transfiguration: you would indeed do it 'from memory' in some sense, except you wouldn't need to remember every detail, in the same way that mathematical objects have an inverse under operations.

Edit: got there before me, but I like my solution better.

 

Your solution is a good one, except that it doesn't allow for people to reverse other people's transfigurations, such as McGonagall untransfiguring Malfoy.

 

Looking at transfiguration like maths makes sense. If you look at the spell like a function (which it is), then all you need is the inverse function (assuming it exists) to find the antecedent to anything, and the inverse function can be figured out from the initial function. In other words, if you know what the transfigured object is, and what spell you used to make it so, then the initial object can be derived from that information, without resorting to backwards!divination.

Good point.

In that case, the only way I can make that work is if the spells are somewhat generic; ie, you can't determine all the characteristics of the object you are transfiguring. For example, both Malfoys when transfigured were white, this might not be a coincidence.

 

The easiest way to solve the arguement is that from the original transfiguration that there is a small amount of the spell still lingering in the object that you can use to reverse the process. Or the fact that the spell is constant and is a constant force keeping the change.

 

This is kind of what I was getting at. When I used the word divine it was in the broadest sense: to discover something.

 

Transfiguration vs. Economy

Something that popped into my head while reading through the transfigration vs. Wizarding economy part of the thread:

There is nothing that prevents people from transfiguring whatever they want into whatever else they want. Perhaps some laws against making galleons and additional fraud legislature. Writers could have a lot of fun here, trying to make Wizarding society actually work.

However, to transfigure something in so ways is to know precisely what one wants to get. That is - if I am trying to transfigure my workout clothes into an Armani suit, I had better know quite a bit about where different pieces of the suit fit together, where the seams go, how to construct the fabric from thread, and many more things. So unless I am a tailor, or have gone out of my way to examine Armani suits and learn the transfiguration, I would not simply be able to wave my wand and "concentrate;" I would not have enough detail to make a good suit.

Same with food, non-basic furniture and any sort of living object. There is no reason that Madame Malkin does not use Transfiguration to create the robes that she sells - the differentiator between her and other witches being that she took the time to study how to construct the robes and base materials.

 

Not really. When Transfiguration students turn objects into animals, I highly doubt that they know every single aspect of that animal's biology and chemistry. More likely is that they simply think "rabbit" (or the Latin spell suffix for rabbit is part of the spell) and the biology and chemistry of said animal follows from the name.

Except for skill, and the various laws of magic.

 

I am not sure I buy that. I feel that most of the transfigurations taught in lower classes would be part of the "macro" idea proposed earlier, slowly relaxing it as students study more about the details of the transfiguration. When Harry's tranfiguration is only partial it is due to a lack of understanding of what the spell he is using provides as opposed to what he should provide in focusing on what he wants to get.

 

So you're saying that in order to transfigure an animal, you need to know everything about it?

Wow, the wizarding world must be extremely advanced when it comes to the sciences. Much more so than the Muggle world.

 

No, but you have to have enough details to fill in for whatever the spell you are using does not; in other words, if you are using a general xyz => living spell, you would need to know a little bit about the skeletal structure of the animal, the internal organs, and so on.

As to the "much more advanced" - why is it that the magical world cannot know about anatomy and physiology? One does not need to deal with the internals of cells because the noliving => living component of the spellwork does that for you; unless you are really extreme and want to use the inorganic => organic and nothing else to turn a piece of rock into a living mouse...

 

So, the spell does the bits that you don't know about ("One does not need to deal with the internals of cells because the noliving => living component of the spellwork does that for you") but you do require a small amount of knowledge of the creature?

That seems to me completely arbitrary. If the spell can do the more complex bits for you, then it can certainly do the simple bits like skeletal structure.

What the magical world can or cannot know is irrelevant. All I'm saying is that it's unlikely that 16 year olds know about chemistry and biology beyond even the cleverest of Muggles - those who have had decades of training in the field.

 

Of course - but the thing about nonliving => living doing the cellular and subcellular structures is that they are generally the same between different living creatures (up to which ones should actually be used and in which part of the creature), whereas the anatomy and physiology of different creatures have more differences with respect to one another.

Then again, this all falls apart on the level of genetics.

I wonder... is it possible to stick to canon 100% and come up with a consistent and workable society and framework for magic?