@ BioPlague

I believe I brought that issue up once before in this thread.

I never thought to question it's validity after this -- everyone seemed to have taken it for granted. Maybe I was mistaken when I decided to jump on the canon bandwagon...

Lol. If it turns out you're correct, Taure's gonna be soooo pissed. His whole argument seems to be based on a single statement JKR made at an interview.

PS : Will reserve judgement on the soul-theory until the this hype about magical genetics dies down.
---
@Taure

It sure as hell is. Most of your 'logical' deductions seem to centre around glib comparisons. Your final judgement is nearly always based on an assumption you made from the statement that precedes it --> If X makes sense than Y must make sense too.
---

So I was right when I claimed your attempt at a feasible theory was a half-baked failure. By not attempting to explain an 'unknown' you yourself introduced, you're purposefully ignoring the plethora of changes it might bring to your final outcome.
---

No we don't. You're saying you know this based on what? Canonic evidence that clearly contradicts itself?

^^ Basing your evidence on this is a new level of dumbassery. You're saying a contradictory statement such as the aforementioned may be deigned 'correct' if JKR says so? Hell no.

Consider this. If you believe everything JKR says must be accepted as canon, then your own logic fails you. The above clearly shows JKR screwed up. Hence her screwing up, by your logic, would mean canon screwed up. Thereby, by your logic, canon is flawed.
---

Careful, there. That statement has the potential to start another raging argument.

And as for the rest of the bullshit you cooked up --> Is this a fucking episode of 'Magical Mythbusters'? Canon 'busts' one myth, and that automatically leads you to conclude that every magical law can be 'busted'?

Some laws aren't meant to be broken, and canon clearly states this:

This is an absolute statement -- there's no yet's, but's or however's added to suggest this may not be true in the future, or in different circumstances -- it's fucking law. Omnipotent willpower/intent (which you keep bringing up) or not, you simply cannot make magic do what it can't.

And for the record, your theory poses an oxymoron that renders it invalid.

Exercising a wizard's omnipotence to its maximum potential through omniscience. By giving omnipotence a maximum potential you're setting a limit on a value that is infinite.

Petty? You bet. Ofcourse we could exhaust another thread arguing the semantics of the above statement, but the fact remains that your justification was poorly worded. Doesn't present a very convincing front, does it?
---

LOL @ arbitrary truth-independent BS. I could say the same for all the BS you are continually spouting.

If canon screws up, and it does screw up, what other option are we left with? There's no 'standard of truth', barring logic (what you call 'fanon'), left to make an adequate appraisal of this issue.
---

Option (1) --> Bingo

Option (2) --> is not relevant to the issue at hand. It lacks the course of action that must be taken if canon is wrong.

But since you continue to deny the possibility that canon might be wrong, here's something else you can chew over.

You seem to think your theory fits option (2). Yet, there isn't enough canon evidence to prove this.

Firstly, your entire argument is based on a single statement JKR made at an interview (as I've mentioned before), that might not even be canon.

Secondly, ignoring it's debatable canon-ness, you seem to be concluding an awful lot from 7 words. You claim that you are merely 'extrapolating' and 'fleshing out' canon evidence -- yet you conveniently fail to mention how much you twist it to fit your own agenda.

For example, JKR has only stated magic is a gene -- a dominant and resiient one, but still just a gene. There is no mention of a 'magical gene' or a 'magic gene' in any of the featured interviews. There is NO evidence that suggests that this gene is any different from any of the others present in the human nucleus -- after all, in genetics, any one gene can be dominant and resilient.

And yet, you assume that this is grounds enough to claim that this gene is indeed magical, and is therefore characterised by an alternate set of magical rules. How is that canon?
---

Taure, while I applaud your tenacity and faith in canon, you have taken this argument much farther than it needed to go. I understand you have a reputation to maintain, both as a respected senior member and a formidable debater, but you do not fight to win by intellectual reasoning. Rather, you are a captious pedant. You refuse to see things from a different perspective. You refuse to consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Your tactics consist of maintaining a constant stream of drivel -- that is, until you exhaust your opponent. Eventually, your challengers back off, and you are declared the de facto winner.

LOL. A rather apt description by Justblaise.

 

1. It's not from an interview, it's from her website.

2. We've had the "what constitutes canon?" discussion before, and that is a different topic.

3. Suffice it to say that if you start saying that the author is wrong about her own work then all discussion becomes pointless.

Do you even know what the form of an argument is? The form of an argument is what you're left with when you replace terms with variables.

My argument form: for any given X belonging to set Y, we describe in relation to set Y. We describe natural phenomena in terms of natural causes, and consider ourselves right to do so. There is absolutely no reason to demand a natural cause for a supernatural phenomena. It is a category mistake, just as seeking a supernatural explanation for a natural event is (e.g. "Godidit").

Your argument form:

We do X because of Y. We do not do Z because of Y. Thus there are things that cause Y does not cause, such as Z. (We study because parent tells us to, we don't drink piss because parent tells us to, thus parent telling us to do something is not always sufficient cause for doing something).

The two arguments are nothing alike.

For someone who likes to talk about logic a lot, you don't know much about it.

No, not really. I'm just not willing to go into "God of the gaps" territory. I say what I can say, but I don't go beyond what canon can justify, because canon is the only source of authority in a discussion about a fictional universe from which the only data we have is canon.

What we're doing here is analogous to science. In science, very simply, we have empirical data about the world. We try to explain it. The way the world is is the highest authority. No amount of logic or a priori reasoning can refute the natural world.

In discussions about Harry Potter, canon is our empirical data. It's the way the HP world is. If our science (or logic, or whatever) says that it isn't possible, then its our science that must go. (Of course we can step back from the discussion and say "JKR screwed up" but that's taking place on an entirely different level of discourse).

I'm not saying what she said was clever. I wish she hadn't said it. But she has. You can't pick and choose what you like and what you don't. Either JKR is authority on HP, and what she says is correct, or JKR is not authority on HP, in which case there is no authority on HP, and there is no discussion to be had. And since we are having this discussion, we've clearly accepted, if only for the duration of this thread, that there is a discussion to be had.

Except it isn't. The resurrection stone can raise the dead.

It doesn't need another thread, just a paragraph or so of explaining it for your rather limited mental capacities.

If I am strong enough to lift a car, but I have no comprehension of the concept of lifting, or don't know by what process a person goes about to lift things, I have the power to lift a car, but my ability to lift cars is limited by my lack of knowledge about the matter.

Now, it's hard to comprehend how a person cannot understand lifting, but it's a nice example that shows the argument form involved here:

I have the power to raise the dead via my magic, but I do not have the knowledge of the spell to do it. Were someone to teach me the spell, I could do so, but until that time I merely have the power, but not the ability, to raise the dead.

Or,

Wizards are omnipotent but as they lack knowledge are not godlike.

(Before you object, remember that I'm not saying that this is the case, but merely mentioned it as one possible fanon theory which lacks any kind of truth-value as there is no evidence about this topic).

If you agree with option one, "Out of universe explanation: JKR screwed up. End of discussion.", then why are you still talking or attempting in-universe discussion? If out of universe discussion satisfies you completely, there's no reason to have any discussion about the nature of magical inheritance.

Option 2 is the only issue at hand. That is the purpose of the thread.

Ye gods man, now you're getting desperate.

I'm not sure how I can make it more simple.

JKR fact 1: Magic in the HP universe is genetic, and based on a single gene, which is dominant and "resilient" (note that "resilient" is not a technical term in any known theory of genetics).

Genetics fact 1: Given the existence and numbers of Muggleborns and Squibs, a single and dominant gene is not a possible explanation for the wizarding population, according to contemporary genetics.

Only possible in-universe reconciliation of the two above facts: When JKR is talking about genes, she is not talking about genes as understood by contemporary genetics.

I shall put this in some nice and easy logic for you:

1. M^G1
2. M^¬G2
Conclusion. G1=/=G2

I admit sometimes I argue beyond the point of sense (the rape debate comes to mind). This is not one of those occasions.

Your only real argument is this:

JKR is a bad source of canon, which means there is no canon evidence on the matter of magical inheritance, which means that there is no discussion to be had on the matter of how magic is inherited in the HPverse, which means that this thread, dedicated to finding the answer to that question, should not exist.

Needless to say, telling people what HP discussion threads they can and cannot make on a HP discussion board is rather anal.

(Also, reading the ad hominem, you might want to consider yourself before you so eagerly accuse others of the same actions as yours.)

 

What happens when two 'omnipotent' wizards come into conflict?

Besides, if they were really omnipotent, then they could give themselves omniscience.

 

... Did you even get what he was saying at all? If your mental acuity, will, and confidence control your capabilities in magic -seeing as we've established that their is no reservoir for magic in the human body, then you can theoretically do anything if you have a strong enough mind. Therefore, an omniscient wizard would also be an omnipotent wizard, as they would have the ability to use their magic in a way no regular person can. They would be a God.

If what I just said is true then how would one become omnipotent before becoming omniscient? Seems rather paradoxical to me.

@e1 and Sesc: Why debate this anymore if you don't even care about the results? Your finishing argument every time is that Rowling is a dumbass and we can ignore certain things she says because we don't like them. Yeah, you can, in Fanon discussions. As we are talking Canon, her word is law. She wrote the books that we are discussing, after all.

Magic is a gene, plain and simple. My brother, Heir, seems to want to bring in the soul. It makes sense, yeah, but just like all conjecture it can seem to be correct. Well, guess what? It's still arbitrary. JKR is Canon, your word and my brother's word is not. That's the end of the story, and this discussion is at the point where both sides are as correct as each other. My side is looking to Canon, yours is looking away from JKR.

Taure: And when did you become such a Bertrand Russell fanboy? You've got a quote in your signature and you've used his critique on Leibniz.

 

An actual response to something I typed? Thanks!

Anyways, my theory makes more sense, nubs. Q.Q

 

Magic is only available through the use of advanced technology.

Thousands of years in the future, everything is based purely on the gathering of more knowledge to advance life. Technology is a huge part of this since it allows not only the advancement of human lives, but also the creation of new life forms. All these experiments were done on a distant planet.

Human lives got extended due to the use of advanced nanobots which repaired all damage inside the body. This doubled the expectancy of a human life. A side effect was that the nanobots were able to generate electromagnetic fields to ‘do weird stuff’, hence dubbed ‘magic’. Later versions also automatically created new nanobots when inside a body, thus passing them to descendants.

Since the inventors of the technology to create life had zero imagination, they used old literature to spike their ‘awesome life creating device’. Months after learning how to read those dubious and ancient books, they started creating something named Tweety. The first experiment resulted in a massive fire-explosion which created Fawkes. Other animals were created, until they got their souls sucked out by the creation of the Dementors.

The Dementors killed everyone until Aisha, a descendant of the almighty Luna, managed to strike back with her herd of Crumple-Horned Snorkacks. Realizing that the Dementors were slowly winning, she ran into her laboratory and activated the experimental time device.

Due to a ‘slight’ error she was not sent through the portal alone. Most of the life that was on that planet got sucked through as well. The Dementors were dazed and fled to a distant island to recuperate. The other animals left as well, spreading around the world.

Aisha eventually regained consciousness and noticed that all the animals were gone. The only thing nearby was a backpack filled with nanobot-injectors. With a twinkle in her eye she randomly started injecting people with it. She eventually started her own family with a man named ‘Lovegood’ and entertained her children with the tales of the animals she once met.

--

I haven’t read the entire topic, especially since I’m not remotely interested in the entire gene-discussion. I’m also not very good at discussing scientific stuff, so I’m only going to toss out another option into the mix and hope I don’t get run over by a truck: What about blood (excluding flesh, bones, etc)?

This has more to do with observing Voldemort’s actions before he gained a body. He was unable to use magic when being a spirit. He was able to use magic when being in the child-like body (which is never described as to how he gained it… pity; magic used = killing the caretaker).
For the ritual, he was only obsessed about one component: Harry’s blood.

Did Voldemort only need Harry’s blood in an attempt to remove the ancient protections? If that is true, then why did Harry not get attacked behind the blood wards?
Or was it for the true reason, which Voldemort hid, and purely for the magic that was contained in the blood? If blood carries magical ability and power, then it comes over more reasonable as to why Voldemort would want Harry’s. After all, Harry did manage to ‘defeat’ Voldemort.
Wanting the blood only to bypass the protections, would mean that Voldemort would actually remember to attack Harry instead of ignoring him the entire summer (and every summer after that).

The other components in the ritual come over as dubious.
If the bone is used for magical ability… well, his muggle father’s bone? I rather doubt it. It could make a muggle Voldemort.
Pettigrew’s flesh is even more dubious as a basis for magical power. Hell, Voldemort would probably be a squib then.
The only wildcard is the child-like body that Voldemort has (which is, in essence, a fourth component). No further knowledge on that though.

This only reinforced how much he wanted Harry’s blood and ignored all other components. It was the only thing he was, according to Pettigrew (why don’t we use another’s blood?), obsessed with; eventually resulting in the kidnapping of Harry from under Dumbledore’s nose.

It could also make clear why Dumbledore had his ‘triumphant gleam’. If blood truly does contain magical ability, then Voldemort and Harry became equals as soon as the ritual was done, thus fulfilling another part of the prophecy.

So, is there any possibility in blood carrying the magical ability? Could you do a blood transfusion and pass over magical ability? Could you capture a pureblood, filter the blood, and make him into a muggle?

Just tossing that out... And yes, I was bored when writing the technology-stuff.