This. If the physical state has been changed then the transfigured object has no more reason to revert to the original object than any other object has to spontaneously change in to another object.

Also, Hairy McBoons (I think that's their names) are magical creatures created via Transfiguration and they've been around for several hundred years.

So even if Transfiguration isn't permanent, it lasts long enough to be effectively permanent.

There are both logical and evidential reasons for thinking transfiguration is permanent.

One argument here is that conjuring makes things from nothing (it's the reverse of vanishing, which sends things into nothingness) and so the thing doesn't belong in the universe. Its true state is nothingness, and will revert to that state.

But that's more of an excuse than an explanation, because it doesn't really match up well with what we see of other magic (e.g. most magic doesn't appear to care about the conservation of energy).

Also, by that explanation, vanished objects should eventually re-appear.

With respect to time scales: Dumbledore conjured a sleeping bag for every student of Hogwarts which lasted the night, so at least that, potentially. I guess it depends on the skill with which the spell is cast.

 

Transfiguration is permanent; otherwise, they wouldn't have to learn a spell to transfigure an object back.

I prefer to think that there's something inherent about the properties of gold in particular (and precious metals and stones in general) that makes them untransfigurable. Such properties gives them real value outside of the fact that someone decided that they were valuable.

it's a nice explanation for why muggles value precious metals, actually.

 

It says exception here.

 

So you can conjure, say, potions ingredients?
It seems a little ridiculous that magic is capable of permanently creating something from nothing and you still expect poor families to exist, like the Weaselys. Conjuration, even if slow and difficult, could make one enormous amounts of money in the muggle world, with which you can buy gold or whatever.
edit(sniped): You could want a reverse-transfiguration for entirely unrelated reasons. Maybe you just don't want to wait for it to change back?

 

If I don't go with the omnipotence-with-flawed-user argument, I'd say that I like enembee's idea for the Exemptions of Gamp's Law: you can conjure anything, except for life, love, magic, money and food. The five things that pretty much any civilisation needs to work well.

 

I'd say food is a subset of life (as life feeds on life). The last exception is knowledge.

 

Ah, fair point. Except you can divine knowledge from tea cups.

 

Yeah, but nothing will be written on the china unless you knew it was there already- you can conjure or transfigure something into a book, but unless you know its contents, all that will appear inside should be "blah, blah, blah." No instant Horcrux dissertations for the ambitious conjurer.

 

Clearly you've never been to McDonald's.

 

Now I really want to go back and read the series. It's a damn shame it eventually became a full-on slash story (IIRC I stopped reading around that point in the 4th book or so, up until then there was the promise of slash but no real manifestation).

If this is so, what is the rationale for human transfiguration? We know that transfigured humans retain some presence of mind (Malfoy -> ferret, Slughorn -> couch), so are we to assume that the mind is kept intact on some metaphysical level? Also, if you transfigure someone back from something, are they going to be the exact same person, physically, or just a close approximation dependent on the skill of the caster?

 

I'd go with a 'finite incantatem makes the object in question go back to its original form', so that would denote a measure of the timeline being remembered in some way, perhaps in the object itself. That said, isn't human-animal transfiguration (without using the animagus transformation) supposed to put your mind basically in the brain of an animal, so that you eventually begin to think like the body you're inhabiting?

 

I think that makes sense, but it doesn't explain human-inanimate object transfiguration. Eh, whatever. We're verging on the realm of pure speculation, so it's hard to say what's right, one way or the other.

 

Allow me to revise: as Gamp has never been to a McDonald's, he probably would classify food as a subset of life, the theory being that life feeds on life.

Yet somehow, exceptions to every rule (like the Philosopher's Stone) appear to support the 'omnipotent to the limits of belief' version of magic.

So really, it's 'food/money/magic/knowledge/love cannot be conjured/permanently transfigured due to a lack of sufficiently complete visualization and belief', but that sort of talk can get one killed.

 

So you're arguing that those exceptions are simply temporary? Because Avis conjures birds.

As for money, couldn't you just conjure a couple tons of any metal valuable to industry but isn't Gold/Silver/Platinum/Palladium/etc. and then sell it? My point isn't necessarily that canon doesn't support permanence in transfiguration and conjuration, only that JKR obviously didn't think about the repercussions of such if it's true. As in no wizard should be poor. Considering their population, they wouldn't be able to have a significant effect on the muggle economy.

@silverlasso: The explicitness is easily skipped, and the story isn't really sappy or anything. I'd say go and reread it because the true culmination of everything all happens in books 6 and 7, much like canon.

 

We know souls exist in Harry Potter, so I'd say the body is changed (including the brain) but the soul isn't.

Which is why the animagus transformation is so special. It lets you keep your mind when transformed.

(JKR's statements contradict canon here. She's said that transfigured people don't maintain their ability to think like a human, but Krum rescued Hermione as a shark).

Edit for above: JKR has said conjuration is temporary, which canon supports. There's never been a definite statement on transfiguration, but all evidence (stated above) leads to the belief that it's permanent until reversed.

The problem is, again, society. But one can give some excuses for this. The most used one is that most wizards are useless, so have to pay other wizards for services they cannot perform themselves. JKR has also said that there are laws regarding what people are and aren't allowed to transfigure for themselves. The reasoning behind such laws is unclear (other than to support her plot, obviously).

 

It was a partial transfiguration- only Krum's upper half was a shark- the lower half (where his brain resides) was still human-ish. Either that or he's a less-than-perfect animagus.

 

You mind providing a link or something to the interview where she said that?

 

It's in Tales of Beedle the Bard.

I'll go look for which one now.

Edit: page 83. Dumbledore's commentary to Babbity Rabitty.

The last part seems to be pretty definitive on the permanence of Transfiguration too. You'd remain an animal until someone Transfigured you back.

I guess you could say thet Krum was a failed animagus, or that he kept his mind because the transfiguration was incomplete. Both have problems though.

 

Thanks. Never read 'Tales of Beedle the Bard', probably going to rectify that soon.

 

Seems to me, then, that by rephrasing this:

as this:

then perhaps, we can explain why there's no reason to believe that conjurations should be any less permanent than any other transfiguration.