No, you CAN put your soul back together through remorse, remember? Hermione explains to Harry that the act can be so painful as to be fatal, but Harry does leave it as an option for Voldemort right before the last showdown. But if he'd been capable of going down that road, Voldemort wouldn't be Voldemort.
agreed. Although it would be accurate that there is no way to magically heal the soul. no spell to suture it together or make the healing easier. But there is a way to put it together, just through very painful work on oneself and willpower can one put it back together and live. Magical Result, not magical process I guess
So yes, it has been addressed, if briefly, during the fight between Harry and Voldemort. "Try for some remorse," Harry says. There is much more in the book.
Yes and many other witches and wizards have glasses. Percy and Arthur Weasley for example (at least in the books that is, not sure why they had none in the movies though it seems an easy prop to ad) So I gues your correct on this one
Potion ingredients is most likely one of Gamp's laws. Why spends gallons on a unicorn horn or hair when you can transfigure one into it, let alone other rare ingredients. My guess once you destroy a transfigured object it reverts to its original state, let alone trying to brew with an miss-transfigured ingredient.
I feel like too that for some potions, it can actually be quite dangerous and perhaps lead to severe injury or death if you try to brew a potion with transfigured ingredients.
Let me preference this by saying i think you are correct. Also , i love this book series. However its annoying to me that us fans can agree on something and come to a conclusion (thats most likely correct and based off of context) when it should have alreadybeen addressed! If you brought this point up to ms rowling and started discussing she would tell you there are actually 8 laws from gamp. Retcon queen
@@joesewell2311Because every little detail of everything has to be adressed? C'mon, fans will ALWAYS find more stuff to discuss about anything. If every little detail was 100% explained all the time, every book would have thousands of pages, they would be boring and there would be nothing to talk about. So stop shitting on Rowling.
@@davidcopeland5450I feel that you are on to something very important. Actually, I feels like McGonnagall might require ten inches of homework on precisely that theme to be handed in immediately after Christmas break in one’s first year.
@@TerezatheTeacher people ask because the series contradicts itself all the time. Rowling tried to fix the inconsistencies later and everything is messy as a result.
Assuming goblins make gold, or whoever makes the wizard currency for that matter, maybe they’re made a certain way that means they can’t be duplicated in order to keep the value. Through a certain (or number of) spell, or the process is tedious, much like some potions that take months to make, which gives wizard currency the effect if being un-duplicatable. It would make sense that goblins could do this since they’re in charge of the banks and are really skilful blacksmiths/ crafters who take pride in their work so much so that they wouldn’t allow wizards to devalue the currency.
I'm almost positive that while not explicitly stated in the cannon, gold is goblin made. In the 7th book when we meet Griphook we learn about goblin culture and that they believe whatever was made by a goblin is ultimately owned by goblins. So it would make sense that they would manage the ONLY bank that we know of in their world as to keep a close eye on 'their' property.
having just had an entire semester of economics, i think this touches on something right. Its not a problem to duplicate money, the problem is that the value of it is useless if increased quantity doesnt correspond with increased economic output - like Venezuela, or any other case of hyperinflation.
@@doll9340so if love isn’t magical, what did Lilly’s sacrifice do that gave harry protection? Seems like magic to me even if it’s not traditional magic.
I would expand 'Gold' into 'Precious Metals' as a whole. Since wizard money is made up of more than just gold coins. Might as well throw 'Gemstones' onto that pile as well.
Well, in HP and the Deathly Hallows, during the trio's trip into Gringotts, the gemino charm/curse did allow for the duplication and multiplication of gold and other objects. But I suppose it's not a permanent multiplication and when the effects of the spell eventually wears out, the multiplied objects vanish.
The food one always bugs me. Carbs are just H-C chains. They should be able to turn any plant matter into sugar and fat and protein are everywhere. Summon up a swarm of bugs and transfigure them into chicken. Chop down a tree and transfigure it into candy. Summon a little 5W40 off an E46 BMW and transfigure it into some extra virgin olive oil. I suspect the nature of the law is that Rowling didn't understand basic food chemistry.
@@dquan731 I get that, but, if you can change forms of "food," you don't need to. There are infinite sources of carbs, fat, proteins, vitamins and minerals.
You also can't make a muggle or squib a magician, but a wizard or witch can lose their magical abilities due to certain circumstances. Vampirism and lycanthropy cannot be cured. I think the apparition distance is also limited, but I don't know how it works exactly. You probably can't magically travel to the future either. I also don't know to what extent a wizard can interfere with the weather
It could be also noted that in terms like werewolves and how lycanthropy cannot be cured, It doesn't seem like a magical limitation in terms of an universal law, but more like lack of invented cure yet. Considering how wolfsbane potions where invented in the 80s that allowed a werewolf to retain his sanity during transformation, that would suggest that a cure is still being researched on
Technically, George’s curse could’ve been healed if they knew the counter curse since it was Snape that did it. But he didn’t know it was George that he hit with it.
That's a curious point: why does a spell work, if the intended is not affected. Inversely, why is an unintended bystander affected? What is the range and potency of collateral damage?
@@Neenerella333 I feel that a lot of spells depend on the users wand execution to work as intended, especially for one as precise as Sectumsempra. A hand slip like the one that happened in the battle has unintended consequences.
I don't quite know if 'vulnerable sanento' would have worked unless they still had George's separated ear with them. When Snape did it on malfoy, no body part was cut off. He just closed the open curse wounds. Maybe with the ear, they could have tried to grow it back on with the same spell. Even tho it's unclear if anybody in the order could have performed it, since the countercurse was snapes invention aswell .
@@mrsbeanie4576 If I remember correctly, Jinxes are meant as pranks and not to meant to do true harm. Curses have the intent to harm or kill the intended target.
Ron: Eat Slugs! Ron then coughs up slugs. Either Ron has created an independent moving portal gathering slugs and transporting them to his throat... OR, Ron conjured life. Unless we are really going to claim Ron, who is god awful at transfiguration both book and movies, perfectly created slug replicas non stop with a broken wand (which hadn't chosen him), to himself, against his actual will. Thats a big plot hole for ole JK.
It might be possible to conjure currency but doing so would probably be very illegal and there are probably spells to determine if a piece of currency is genuine.
Healing cursed wounds. I would expand that to healing some curses as well. It seems that some curses are unable to be healed. For example lycanthropy and blood malediction. Obviously lycanthropy can be managed through the use of wolfspane potion, but it can only be managed. It can't be cured. Likewise blood malediction. Once you have these curses, you are stuck with them. So I would say that I would expand the healing of cursed wounds to include some curses that simply can't be healed. At best they can be managed, at worst, you just have to let them take their course.
If food could not be produced from nothing, how did Ollivander produce a fountain of wine with Harry's wand in Goblet of Fire? Also, how could someone conjure fire when fire in nature comes from the living things magic cannot produce? It seems like the same principle should apply to food and fire because they both come from living things. Finally, could someone conjure other elements besides gold?
Funny you should mention the elements; we do in fact (during the Ministry Battle) where Voldemort conjures a fire snake but it didn't seem like fendie fire & Dumbledore retaliates with a water bubble. I I'm sure if magical can conjure things like that then surely they can conjure dirt for a potted plant or whatever & really one of Voldemorts main magical skills is fire magic.
I'm guessing Ollivander has wine already, he probably has some in his home and he's summoning it from there. Remember, Hermione says you can conjure it if you know where it is
@@derrickburwell7777 LMAO I've never seen The Last Air Bender but I still know the reference & they were bending those elements to their will so never know might have been an "unintentional" crossover haha
Fire is energy, not life. And water can be conjured, so it must not be considered food. As for wine, if he knew where some was, he could make it appear in the fountain and then multiply it.
One limitation is long 'distance' time travel. A time turner can take you back by only a few hours at most. Otherwise Harry could journey back to Godric's Hollow and fight Voldemort on Oct. 31st 1981 and thereby change his past which would also be his future which would create a paradox. And so you can't go back more than a few short hours at best.
The magical properties or limitations regarding why time turners can't go back more then a few hours are not explained at a fundamental level. That's more of a writing paradox when it comes to time travel in fiction as a whole with Rowling not realizing that until after PoA where she tried to put a band-aid on the whole thing by introducing the few-hour limit, which doesn't solve the paradox problem to begin with, like in PoA
@@vikkran401 It does make sense that there has to be a limit though. Otherwise you have effect coming before cause etc. The reason you have to go back is to fix x but if you go back and prevent x from happening then you don't need to go back in order to prevent x from happening which means it does happen which means you have to go back and fix x etc. In one scene Harry? gets hit by a rock while he, Ron and Hermione are in Hagrid's hut and it's only after Harry and Hermione go back via the time turner that we find out that it was Hermione who threw the rock. So she had to go back to throw the rock but from her point of view it has already happened even though from her point of view it also has still to happen. So did she have to go back to throw the rock or had she already thrown it before hand? you can argue that it's both but then that's a paradox as well since it's both her past and her present at the same time. That leads you to wonder which came first the rock having been thrown or the rock had yet to be thrown?
Imo, time turners shouldn't exist at all. The mare idea of travelling into the past is a paradox on its own, let alone if you try and alter the past...
I suspect that creation ex nihilo is also truly impossible. Wizards can summon things, right, but I don't think they actually have the power to truly "make" things, only transforming the world around them with magic. I think when they cast a spell that conjures up something, it is either summoning it from another location, or it is taking air, earth, etc. and transmuting it into a construct of that thing that behaves and acts accordingly. I suppose it's possible these things might be manifested from energy too, but if so that would suggest that wizards possess the ability to channel nuclear-bomb level energies, which I find hard to believe given the greatest feats displayed in the books. I also suspect the full potential of what a wizard can do is also limited. There is a maximum energy output for each wizard, and they cannot go past that. Whatever force they channel through their bodies that allows magic can only channel so much of it at any one time, and it probably costs them effort, similar to using a muscle. Basically, wizards are bound by things like conservation of energy.
The ability to replicate food seems a problematic one. Virtually all life is "food" for fauna such as wizards. Replication would mean that a single spec of flour could be used to feed a multitude. And if you get too in the weeds on it, replication of any sort starts to have interesting consequences. That gold must be immune is necessary for it to be currency. The ability to replicate gold would not make all wizards wealthy, rather it would make them all poor as gold would have no value.
I personally think you can't conjure gold just like you do, but I think it's a different reason. I think it's actually directly related to the Philosopher's Stone
I feel like Gold could be conjured as it is a natural element ( similiar to Stone, wood etc.). But I like to think that the curency used in the wizzarding world is enchanted somehow to know if its legaly obtained or not.
Id be curious as to other possible limitations. For example, depending on the caster, wand, skill, destructive spells can have yields from a small firecracker to 50lb + of high explosive. However is there any true limit? Excluding skill n wand etc limits, does anything prevent a wizard from casting a destructive spell powerful enough to obliterate an entire city in 1 go. *This question infers to instantaneous / rapid destruction like that of a bomb and not progressive like that of fire or decay*
It's pretty clear the conjuration rules exist to prevent everyone being able to conjure a solution to anything and allow an economy to exist in a way that isn't bartering high skill conjured items. Since conjuration is still skill limited, technically a barter economy could exist from specialize conjuration.
I often wonder about the philosophers stone, and horcrux's. Does the wizard or witch continue ageing infinitum, or do you reach a certain point and stop aging?
Interesting video! I'm a writer working on a fantasy comic set at a magic school. I often use Harry Potter discussions to help me work out my magic system. My worldbuilding is very important to me and I wanna cover as much ground as possible. There are some big questions I still need to answer like how does magic influence food production, medicine and disabilities, and crime or laws? It would be easy to make a magic system where magic can produce as much food as needed, or heal any injury/handicap, or even completely prevent crimes. But that is boring! No one wants to read about a utopia where nothing ever goes wrong. I would guess that this is why Gamp's Law exists in HP though I do have to say I think it's a pretty lazy solution. Why can't food be transfigured? All we're told is that it can't be, but the why isn't answered (as far as I know). Personally, I want the reasons why certain things can't be done to be more satisfying for my magic system.
One thing that no one’s talked about. What about a spell that could imprint one’s memories and personality onto another. Use a spell to suppress another’s mind and another spell to imprint your mind into them. Obviously as you mentioned you can’t erase others or erase there souls. However you could suppress them. This would be a method of exceeding one’s life from a point of view.
wizard poverty makes little sense on a number of levels. if someone can duplicate things or make copies of something, or transfigure something into something else, or whatever method they use. how can any kind of item selling economy exist besides like borgin and burkes and olivanders? they sell essentially completely unique items so i get that. but like, a joke shop? a pet store? can't these wizards just take something with the same molecular or genetic make up that's substantially cheaper and make it into something worth buying? how would you know the book you're buying from school was a real book and not a pile of kindling someone found in a forest? and further more, if they're the same, who would give a damn and how could you make money from it if everyone could do it for themselves? there's a lot of things i don't get
The thing is that in a world where you can create things from air, our current economical system (or any economical system that has ever existed) lacks any sense. But HP its not about economics, so the author just ignores the thing (with a good reason). The only thing i can imagine about this is that the creation of money is absolutly forbidden and highly monitored, cause it could lead to a massive inflation, destroying the economical system. But still is an incomplete answer.
Nor me. Like you can duplicate food so Molly could for example have one piece of meat one potato one veggie and duplicate a family dinner from that. They also seem to pay no rent or mortgage on their home. Muggles dont know about it so I doubt they pay for facilities as they seem to do without electricity. They seem to not have any of the cost we have in real life. So what then makes wizards poor.
@@marcelsgroot what makes wizards Paul? Personally, when I look at the Wesley, I think a lot of their poverty is simply that they don't manage their resources very well. I mean… They can barely afford to get to school things and they barely have any silver let alone gold in the vault, yet they seem to be able to afford to go and spend Christmas with Bill in Egypt or with Charlie in Romania. So I think for them, I think it's that they manage their resources very badly rather than not actually having resources. As for Lupin? I just think he just doesn't have the resources there. It is possible as well that, visiting society perhaps denies him certain opportunities for magic… I don't know. That one is a little bit weird, and I'd say she wrote it as an allegory for disability. But as usual, she didn't think it through because she never does think things through.
I think the diary is a legit cloning option. If Tom Riddle had drained Ginny's life force, that Tom would returned as a separate entity from main Voldemort, since the only way for them to rejoin their soul fragments would be Voldemort regretting the murder of Myrtle, which seems quite unlikely.
Hey has anyone else notice that each horcux represents one of the 7 books; the ring B1, Nagini B2, locket B3, H’s cup B4, R’s diadem B5, dairy B6, and Harry B7
@TbV-st8ef I am just assuming 1) ring is the resurrection stone = sorcerer's stone 2)nagini = basilisk 3) locket = "locked up" as a prisoner 4) cup = goblet 5)diadem is found in the same room that that the DA trained in 6) diary is a book like the potion book owned by HBP
And if there are any spells that can do this, they always seem temporary. Fred and george used an aging potion but that was temporary. There are several times animals are conjured but again they are fake and exist temporarily
I'm curious about transfixed animals or plants. If a live thing was transfigured, could it be returned to the living animal it once was? I just wonder how wibbly wobbly magic can get, as it seems there is a lot of hidden magic.
There are unforgiveable curses, and I get that... but, you can incindio or confringo someone, then arresto momentum them and watch them burn in super slow motion... I can think of a few others, but you get the idea.
I wonder if there can be a workaround for Gamp's law? I suggest a cabinet or fridge. Whenever you grip the handle to open the door, the cabinet knows your intent. If you want to add food, a place is available to put it. Once the door is closed again, the inserted food goes into a space inside the cabinet and is frozen in time. If you want anything that is in the cabinet, a duplicate of the time frozen food is conjured when the handle is grasped.
if goblins are so closely related to wizardly money, it could be assumed that possibly theres something innately magical about their currency? like the metal material used in the creation of the Sword Of Gryffindor. And possibly that relates to Gamps Law and the money theory?
Yes, and it's clear that goblins are also closely related to wizards biologically as well. After all… If the likes of Filius Flitwick has only a "-" of goblin blood in him, clearly wizards and goblins are able to interbreed and produce viable offspring. And this is evidenced by the fact that Flitwick is less than half goblin. Anyway, all that to say, that if wizards and goblins are that close biologically that they can produce viable offspring when they are interbreed, then it stands to reason that magically they would be closely related as well.
The part regarding aging is partly incorrect, as magic can make you older. In the Hogwarts Legacy game one of the professors says she was wounded by time itself, resulting in her looking older than she should be.
I didn't read all the comments but a couple things about some things that I did read. Yes the Gemino curse can multiply wealth to a degree like in the Deathly hallows. But as stated by Griphook its not an exact duplicate. Even if it was permanent as Griphook said it would have no real value. The Potion Ingredients probably have at least a connection to the Food Law. For one thing most if not all come from either some kind of plant or Animal. Also Yes you cant create them it seams but you also cant duplicate them it would seem that's why you always have too buy more once you use them up. I think it would also be useful to mention here that If you remember When Harry and Dumbledore went to recruit Slughorn After gathering back up the dragons blood Horace looked at it and said it was cloudy or something like that but might be good for one more use. So that means certain substances cant fully be cleaned or removed at least not when mixed with others.
I think living forever could be possible in that world because the horcrux exists. It might be possible to do what other fantasy genres have done and have a wizard remove their entire soul to a phylactery thus protecting the soul and the wizard would become a lich, an undead magical being; rotting but still alive.
I am confused as to Hermione, making Canaries, she even use that spell to have them all Ron when she was mad at him. I think they were proof in the movie when they ate something, but the books I think that they remain. When does the Canary go from an animal to food?
Ive got a question. Why would tom riddle sr drink anything that someone who lives in a shack gives to him. Did she use an unforgivable curse on him in order to make him drink it the first time?
Curses can be treated, just need the proper counter curse. Snape knew the counter-curse to Sectum Sempra, and was able to use it on Draco, but no one else did, and so George couldn't be treated.
Death is possibly to be avoided, as you explained with Flammel and Voldemort. Slughorn told Tom that that Horcrux would make it so he cannot die, hence why Voldemort sought it out. And technically life and death can be created; The Dementors were created by a Dark Wizard, and even tho that wizard is no longer around, those creatures he made do in fact reproduce on their own and there is seemingly no way to kill them. Plus the whole "Multiply food" bit contradicts not being able to conjure it. If its being cut into pieces, then it's not being multiplied, its being divided. Multiplying food is creating more of the same food from nothing.
Dementors are not considered living creatures. They are amortal non beings. They were never born, they were never alive, they can never die since they were never alive, and come into existence from human emotions.
I think when it's said that you can increase the quantity of food, it means that you can have more food if you already have some stored, like having more french fries on your table if you already have potatoes and salt.
I thought the same but, I feel like the killing curse goes deeper than just death of the body. I feel like it more or less destroys/curses the body in some way that the soul of said body can't keep within it. At least that's how I've looked at it 😅
Since they could make more food if they already have some, I've always wondered why, in the last book when they did find food why didn't Hermoine transfigure more of the food so they'd at least have some.
Harry’s mom is a metamorphagus. Her hair clearly changed from purple to red after being sorted. And her grand child, also named Lilly Potter is, by known canon, a metamorphagus. Explain this topic please!
I noticed you summarized the principle exceptions to Gamp’s Law as: Food, Love, Life, Love, Knowledge. I know Gold/Money was supposed to have been in there. Just letting you know! Otherwise, this video is great. 👍🏼
You compare Wizards to humans - Wizards ARE humans. That is perhaps the biggest and most significant point of the novels - that the deepest and most powerful magic is that which we all in reality have - the ability to love, to form bonds with others...
Wizards are most certainly not Homo-Sapiens. 3 main differences: 1) Lifespan of over 150 2) Immunity to most common diseases & intoxication 3) Access to Magic Those differences are enough to categorize wizards as their own species, the Homo-Magicus perhaps?
You are failing to recognize basic biology! If two individuals are capable of mating and producing viable offspring, than they are the same species. A wizard and a muggle are perfectly capable of mating and having a baby, therefore they are the same species. There are many factors that can impact lifespan in real life. Diet, stress, and yes, even genetics - but those that are lucky enough to have a combination of genetics that make them live a particularly long time are still very much human!
@@NikonF5user It's not that simple. Tons Individuals from different species are able to reproduce and have viable off spring as long as the reproductive organs and physical autonomy is near identical. Then there are also individuals of the same species which are unable to reproduce, practically. Like a Great Dane and Chihuahua are the same species (canis lupus familiaris) but are practically unable to breed So just because if wizards were another human species with the only major genetic difference is their cells and their repair function being greatly enhanced, but still structurally the same as a muggle homo sapiens, otherwise their autonomy is the same and the reproductive organs are the same so there's no reason for them not to be able to breed
@@vikkran401It's funny to see your response - I'm a biologist - when teaching about the species concept I discuss Great Danes and Chihuahuas. I think there's much more here in this discussion however suggesting that wizardry is a rare recessive trait rather than a closely related species. In fact, I created a lesson I use with my genetics courses that explains how wizarding genetics could persist in a population in such a way that you have muggleborns descended from generation of muggles!
Not being able to produce food seems rather arbitrary. What's inherently special about food? The real issue might be that magic can't transfigure organic matter. That would also explain why it can't create life. That doesn't explain how they can multiply food though.
I would have changed some of the limits to these. As many feel like J.K. made the limits to justify class-systems. Like how the Weasleys are so poor. I would reworked the limits into something like what is listed below. First off I would change Conjuration into being its own branch of magic. That it is made from combining Charms and Transfiguration. That one must charm the non-being into being and simultaneously transfigure it out of the rudimentary stage into something else. I would have written as “food” can be conjured from thin air. But it would be a very complex field of conjuration. That just like how it takes farmers years to cultivate the land for flora to grow and for fauna to be breed it takes decades to master. To where even Albus couldn’t produce the feasts for the Hogwarts feasts even with the elder wand. And most don’t bother with it as it has no direct combat uses so most consider and unnecessary field to learn when their are much easier charms to compensate for this. 2. Precious metals and minerals. Mostly the same difficulty as Food but also Goblins have innate ability to know if something especially golden, silver, gemstones etc are made from magic. Plus there would be innate charms one can learn to detect this. (Sidenote, some precious metals might be able to be made magically. As the Occamy lays pure silver eggs.) 3. Life. It’s impossible to create humans but possible for most animals just not magical animals. 4. Immortality. I think it should have been more possible like Aging Charms as there is an aging potion. But these Charms are extremely difficult to where the patronus Charm is a first year level in compariso. And also extremely dangerous as one mix up and one can age themselves into dust. 5. Magic items or substances. Typically Magic can’t create anything that is innately magical. Like Wand Cores or finished potions and even if one tries it at best would be like a Unicorn Hair but without any power. Of course there would be exceptions like magical fire or something. This is all I got for the moment.
The issue I have with the "Golden Rule" is that there are many things that are extraordinarily valuable. Gems, other precious metals, etc... I mean, muggle currency is just cloth and ink. So, not being able to multiply or replicate only gold when other forms of value are available makes little sense. I assume currency transfer between the muggle and wizarding worlds must be possible. Otherwise, how would a child born from two muggle parents (such as Hermoine) pay for her school supplies? With this in mind, making a bar of silver or a platinum necklace to be sold in the muggle world, with the intent of exchanging the proceeds for Gringots gold coins, should be entirely possible. Maybe this "rule" is a morality issue as opposed to a magical impossibility?
I'm sure conjured stuff has more limitations than the Gamp's law, otherwise poverty would still not exist in the Wizarding world. If you can't conjure money and food but you still can conjure good new clothes, a big solid house and every item you need in everyday life, why would the Weasleys still live on hand-me-downs? And why would stores and shops in the Magical world exist at all? My guess is that conjured items, just like conjured animals, have a limited, weak and/or temporary reality status. They might dissolve over a short time and/or not carry the same physical properties as the genuine things, or similar limitations.
I suppose it’s worth noting the aging potion that the Weasley twins used to try and fool Dumbledore’s age line. However since it didn’t seem to do the job, it’s possible that it ages by form of transfiguration.
Age is physics, not biology. You can't jump forward in time, hence you can't make someone older either. Apart from that orb in the department of mysteries, of course.
Lupin and Weasleys was poor of two very different reasons. In the Weasley case it was sort of by chose. Molly chosed to be a stay at home mom and take care of the home and kids instead for working and in that way give one more income to the family. Weasleys have what they need to take care of everyone in the family. Lupin however… noone wanted to hire him at al. He had no money at al and honesty how he survived until he meet Tonks I have no idea (and with her income had something to live on)
It is possible to restore your soul through remorse, it’s just so risky and painful that you’re likely to die before it works. And there’s literally an aging potion that is capable of making the drinker older.
The only thing you got wrong was the not being able to repair a split soul. Hermione, in I believe DH1 says that _Remose_ can repair a split soul but it's dangerous.
@9:57 if the stone only brings back shades then how is Harry truly alive to marry and have a family after coming back alive with the stone on the last book/movie?
Harry didn't come back because of the stone. He avoided death entirely because of the blood bond he shared with Voldemort. A plot point that was briefly explained in the book, and completely ignored in the movie.
You can do anything. But in Harry Potter series, good guys were focused on eating sweets, look at dinner in Hogwarts, absolutly disgusting. They were even using chocolate as medicine. When they not eating sweets, then watching quidditch crap. Evil guys were focused to get power or conquer the school full of kids eating sweets. I think that Voldemort wanted to eat their chocolate supplies. In Grindewald series we had something more, but it's suspended.
About transfiguration, you can't turn ordinary matter (atoms) into food because food is not just matter, it's a specifically bonded form of matter. The molecules simply cannot be formed with magic. You must grow and cook food. You can't turn one form of matter into another. At least not easily enough to where it's worth the effort for certain matters. This is true for the "muggle world" as well, while you technically could, with enough energy, turn lead into gold in the real world. The amount of energy needed to do this makes it not worthwhile. I find that transfiguring a living thing into a cup to be quite laughable. It's a major plot hole and logical paradox. And that form of magic should not exist. Being able to do that but not the other things just doesn't compute and you can't have one without the other. What you can do with magic is trick any observer of an object or living thing into seeing something completely different. Also, i am not saying transfiguration between different living forms isn't possible. Like woman to cat or man to dog. But that is a completely different kind of transfiguration magic. In essence, any transfigurations needs a source material and the amount of energy spent determines just how far you can go with it. And making duplicates of something (even already existing food) makes two half as dense copies of the original. Thus, if you duplicate 1 ounce of gold, you end up with two half ounces of gold each. If you duplicate a burger, you get two burgers that each weigh half as much as the original and might easily fall apart on their own. If you duplicate a living thing, each copy is half-dead. And not very likely to survive even with the most delicate care. Not to mention, it would also be pretty much completely brain dead as half a neuron is not enough to trigger a receptor.
In most cases it's a limit of the Wizard be it by knowledge or capability or both more than a limit in magic. Ancient Magic is capable of things that no living Wizard can do and in most cases Even know about.
Since magic is tied to the earth, they cannot leave it. They can't get on a broom and fly to the moon. They cannot summon any object that is not on the earth.
It's not much different than in Star Trek, with the replicator technology. It presented a problem when introduced in The Next Generation, so Gene had to make up limitations, otherwise dilithium crystals or currency could be endlessly replicated. The in world explanation is that latinum, the basis for currency among most trade species, was too complicated to replicate without large amounts of energy, which would make it unprofitable to replicate. Dilithium crystals, the material used to stabilize their warp engines, was also too complex to replicate perfectly.
Snape created both the curse and counter curse for sectumsempra. Vulnera Sanantur which implies if that at least some curses could be healed if you knew the specific counter curse and that Fred's ear could have been saved maybe even no scarring with some ditini
MORE LONG VIDEOS: ruclips.net/p/PLB5djWCQq2_e0UCOmVbhRP8HkxetpzXUV
Drop the ball on facts on this one
No, you CAN put your soul back together through remorse, remember? Hermione explains to Harry that the act can be so painful as to be fatal, but Harry does leave it as an option for Voldemort right before the last showdown. But if he'd been capable of going down that road, Voldemort wouldn't be Voldemort.
Yes I wanted to state that also. You just beat me to it :)
Beat me to it
agreed. Although it would be accurate that there is no way to magically heal the soul. no spell to suture it together or make the healing easier. But there is a way to put it together, just through very painful work on oneself and willpower can one put it back together and live. Magical Result, not magical process I guess
Remorse is a emotion not a spell/magic and as such doesn't really apply here
So yes, it has been addressed, if briefly, during the fight between Harry and Voldemort. "Try for some remorse," Harry says. There is much more in the book.
Magic also can't seem to fix Harry's eyesight.
Yes and many other witches and wizards have glasses. Percy and Arthur Weasley for example (at least in the books that is, not sure why they had none in the movies though it seems an easy prop to ad) So I gues your correct on this one
Seems like magic can only repair injuries and illnesses that were created by magic.
Or Dumbledore's.
@@thareelhelloagainwhen Dumbledore can’t fix something with magic, you know it can’t be fixed
Does "Oculus Reparo" count? lol
Potion ingredients is most likely one of Gamp's laws. Why spends gallons on a unicorn horn or hair when you can transfigure one into it, let alone other rare ingredients. My guess once you destroy a transfigured object it reverts to its original state, let alone trying to brew with an miss-transfigured ingredient.
I feel like too that for some potions, it can actually be quite dangerous and perhaps lead to severe injury or death if you try to brew a potion with transfigured ingredients.
Let me preference this by saying i think you are correct. Also , i love this book series. However its annoying to me that us fans can agree on something and come to a conclusion (thats most likely correct and based off of context) when it should have alreadybeen addressed! If you brought this point up to ms rowling and started discussing she would tell you there are actually 8 laws from gamp. Retcon queen
@@joesewell2311Because every little detail of everything has to be adressed? C'mon, fans will ALWAYS find more stuff to discuss about anything. If every little detail was 100% explained all the time, every book would have thousands of pages, they would be boring and there would be nothing to talk about. So stop shitting on Rowling.
@@davidcopeland5450I feel that you are on to something very important. Actually, I feels like McGonnagall might require ten inches of homework on precisely that theme to be handed in immediately after Christmas break in one’s first year.
@@TerezatheTeacher people ask because the series contradicts itself all the time. Rowling tried to fix the inconsistencies later and everything is messy as a result.
Assuming goblins make gold, or whoever makes the wizard currency for that matter, maybe they’re made a certain way that means they can’t be duplicated in order to keep the value. Through a certain (or number of) spell, or the process is tedious, much like some potions that take months to make, which gives wizard currency the effect if being un-duplicatable. It would make sense that goblins could do this since they’re in charge of the banks and are really skilful blacksmiths/ crafters who take pride in their work so much so that they wouldn’t allow wizards to devalue the currency.
*their work - it's bad enough seeing people put 'there' instead!
I'm almost positive that while not explicitly stated in the cannon, gold is goblin made. In the 7th book when we meet Griphook we learn about goblin culture and that they believe whatever was made by a goblin is ultimately owned by goblins. So it would make sense that they would manage the ONLY bank that we know of in their world as to keep a close eye on 'their' property.
Funny enough gold coins could be bewitched by Hermione to tell the date of the next DA Meeting 😂.
@@15thobserver *canon
having just had an entire semester of economics, i think this touches on something right. Its not a problem to duplicate money, the problem is that the value of it is useless if increased quantity doesnt correspond with increased economic output - like Venezuela, or any other case of hyperinflation.
Reforming a split soul is possible its stated in the book magick most evil or whatever in the deathly hallows. Hermione reads it out and its remorse.
Yes but it's not a spell or magic. It's kinda like love. It's a strong emotion that can revoke magical effects but it's not magical
@@doll9340so if love isn’t magical, what did Lilly’s sacrifice do that gave harry protection? Seems like magic to me even if it’s not traditional magic.
@NotSoSerious69420 I mean I think emotions help influence magic
Dumbledore tells Harry "No spell can bring back the dead Harry. I trust you know that."
I would expand 'Gold' into 'Precious Metals' as a whole. Since wizard money is made up of more than just gold coins. Might as well throw 'Gemstones' onto that pile as well.
Well, in HP and the Deathly Hallows, during the trio's trip into Gringotts, the gemino charm/curse did allow for the duplication and multiplication of gold and other objects. But I suppose it's not a permanent multiplication and when the effects of the spell eventually wears out, the multiplied objects vanish.
Or they may just appear gold and be tin or something of little or no value? Interesting bit of magic
I think it probably works like leprechaun gold.
Maybe the more duplication of a currency, the less value it becomes.
Griphook said in the book that the copies were worthless
@jurassiccanonking what is that. I know what a leprechaun is, but what is this about their gold?
The food one always bugs me. Carbs are just H-C chains. They should be able to turn any plant matter into sugar and fat and protein are everywhere. Summon up a swarm of bugs and transfigure them into chicken. Chop down a tree and transfigure it into candy. Summon a little 5W40 off an E46 BMW and transfigure it into some extra virgin olive oil. I suspect the nature of the law is that Rowling didn't understand basic food chemistry.
This
The point is, you cannot create food from thin air. To summon something, it must already exist.
@@dquan731 I get that, but, if you can change forms of "food," you don't need to. There are infinite sources of carbs, fat, proteins, vitamins and minerals.
yep, biological material is *everywhere*. You can turn grass into sugar (i know because someone from my university made alcohol on it)
@@RIBill
Duplication is just creation with s blueprint. Wizards are just ignorant.
You also can't make a muggle or squib a magician, but a wizard or witch can lose their magical abilities due to certain circumstances. Vampirism and lycanthropy cannot be cured. I think the apparition distance is also limited, but I don't know how it works exactly. You probably can't magically travel to the future either. I also don't know to what extent a wizard can interfere with the weather
There are treatments for werewolves but no cure 😢
It could be also noted that in terms like werewolves and how lycanthropy cannot be cured, It doesn't seem like a magical limitation in terms of an universal law, but more like lack of invented cure yet. Considering how wolfsbane potions where invented in the 80s that allowed a werewolf to retain his sanity during transformation, that would suggest that a cure is still being researched on
Technically, George’s curse could’ve been healed if they knew the counter curse since it was Snape that did it. But he didn’t know it was George that he hit with it.
That's a curious point: why does a spell work, if the intended is not affected. Inversely, why is an unintended bystander affected? What is the range and potency of collateral damage?
@@Neenerella333 I feel that a lot of spells depend on the users wand execution to work as intended, especially for one as precise as Sectumsempra. A hand slip like the one that happened in the battle has unintended consequences.
I don't quite know if 'vulnerable sanento' would have worked unless they still had George's separated ear with them. When Snape did it on malfoy, no body part was cut off. He just closed the open curse wounds. Maybe with the ear, they could have tried to grow it back on with the same spell. Even tho it's unclear if anybody in the order could have performed it, since the countercurse was snapes invention aswell .
Sectrumsempra and other jinxes were reversable. What is the difference between a curse and a jinx 😮?
@@mrsbeanie4576 If I remember correctly, Jinxes are meant as pranks and not to meant to do true harm. Curses have the intent to harm or kill the intended target.
Ron: Eat Slugs!
Ron then coughs up slugs.
Either Ron has created an independent moving portal gathering slugs and transporting them to his throat... OR, Ron conjured life. Unless we are really going to claim Ron, who is god awful at transfiguration both book and movies, perfectly created slug replicas non stop with a broken wand (which hadn't chosen him), to himself, against his actual will. Thats a big plot hole for ole JK.
his ward likely transfigured the food that he just ate or something, as he has a tendency to eat alot
It might be possible to conjure currency but doing so would probably be very illegal and there are probably spells to determine if a piece of currency is genuine.
I was thinking this too. No different from counterfeit money in the real world, and probably easier to detect with magic.
Healing cursed wounds. I would expand that to healing some curses as well. It seems that some curses are unable to be healed. For example lycanthropy and blood malediction. Obviously lycanthropy can be managed through the use of wolfspane potion, but it can only be managed. It can't be cured. Likewise blood malediction. Once you have these curses, you are stuck with them. So I would say that I would expand the healing of cursed wounds to include some curses that simply can't be healed. At best they can be managed, at worst, you just have to let them take their course.
If food could not be produced from nothing, how did Ollivander produce a fountain of wine with Harry's wand in Goblet of Fire? Also, how could someone conjure fire when fire in nature comes from the living things magic cannot produce? It seems like the same principle should apply to food and fire because they both come from living things. Finally, could someone conjure other elements besides gold?
Funny you should mention the elements; we do in fact (during the Ministry Battle) where Voldemort conjures a fire snake but it didn't seem like fendie fire & Dumbledore retaliates with a water bubble. I I'm sure if magical can conjure things like that then surely they can conjure dirt for a potted plant or whatever & really one of Voldemorts main magical skills is fire magic.
I'm guessing Ollivander has wine already, he probably has some in his home and he's summoning it from there. Remember, Hermione says you can conjure it if you know where it is
@@amethystb12345No, no, no! You got it all wrong! Voldy was Fire Bending and Dumblydore was Water Bending!
Just Kidding!! 😅
@@derrickburwell7777 LMAO I've never seen The Last Air Bender but I still know the reference & they were bending those elements to their will so never know might have been an "unintentional" crossover haha
Fire is energy, not life. And water can be conjured, so it must not be considered food. As for wine, if he knew where some was, he could make it appear in the fountain and then multiply it.
One limitation is long 'distance' time travel. A time turner can take you back by only a few hours at most. Otherwise Harry could journey back to Godric's Hollow and fight Voldemort on Oct. 31st 1981 and thereby change his past which would also be his future which would create a paradox. And so you can't go back more than a few short hours at best.
Tell to that to the cursed child 😂😂
The magical properties or limitations regarding why time turners can't go back more then a few hours are not explained at a fundamental level. That's more of a writing paradox when it comes to time travel in fiction as a whole with Rowling not realizing that until after PoA where she tried to put a band-aid on the whole thing by introducing the few-hour limit, which doesn't solve the paradox problem to begin with, like in PoA
Wouldn't baby Harry see him if he fought Voldemort if he could go back to 31 October 1981? And wouldn't his parents see the future Harry?
@@vikkran401 It does make sense that there has to be a limit though. Otherwise you have effect coming before cause etc. The reason you have to go back is to fix x but if you go back and prevent x from happening then you don't need to go back in order to prevent x from happening which means it does happen which means you have to go back and fix x etc. In one scene Harry? gets hit by a rock while he, Ron and Hermione are in Hagrid's hut and it's only after Harry and Hermione go back via the time turner that we find out that it was Hermione who threw the rock. So she had to go back to throw the rock but from her point of view it has already happened even though from her point of view it also has still to happen. So did she have to go back to throw the rock or had she already thrown it before hand? you can argue that it's both but then that's a paradox as well since it's both her past and her present at the same time. That leads you to wonder which came first the rock having been thrown or the rock had yet to be thrown?
Imo, time turners shouldn't exist at all. The mare idea of travelling into the past is a paradox on its own, let alone if you try and alter the past...
I suspect that creation ex nihilo is also truly impossible. Wizards can summon things, right, but I don't think they actually have the power to truly "make" things, only transforming the world around them with magic. I think when they cast a spell that conjures up something, it is either summoning it from another location, or it is taking air, earth, etc. and transmuting it into a construct of that thing that behaves and acts accordingly. I suppose it's possible these things might be manifested from energy too, but if so that would suggest that wizards possess the ability to channel nuclear-bomb level energies, which I find hard to believe given the greatest feats displayed in the books.
I also suspect the full potential of what a wizard can do is also limited. There is a maximum energy output for each wizard, and they cannot go past that. Whatever force they channel through their bodies that allows magic can only channel so much of it at any one time, and it probably costs them effort, similar to using a muscle.
Basically, wizards are bound by things like conservation of energy.
The ability to replicate food seems a problematic one. Virtually all life is "food" for fauna such as wizards. Replication would mean that a single spec of flour could be used to feed a multitude. And if you get too in the weeds on it, replication of any sort starts to have interesting consequences.
That gold must be immune is necessary for it to be currency. The ability to replicate gold would not make all wizards wealthy, rather it would make them all poor as gold would have no value.
I suggest that you cannot transfigure not just Gold, but all metals i.e. Bronze, Copper, Brass, Iron, Silver, etc. This would include all currency.
I personally think you can't conjure gold just like you do, but I think it's a different reason. I think it's actually directly related to the Philosopher's Stone
I always thought that the Weasley being as poor as they are they duplicate the food molly cooks so they can all eat. They never lacked food
I feel like Gold could be conjured as it is a natural element ( similiar to Stone, wood etc.). But I like to think that the curency used in the wizzarding world is enchanted somehow to know if its legaly obtained or not.
If gold could be conjured, wizards could buy unlimited stuff from muggles.
what about the bird that has been transfiguered into a goblet by mcgonagall? would that work vise versa? or was that bird no "living being"?
Vise versa like turning a rat into a cup? Yes but the cup would be alive where as the bird from a cup would not be
Id be curious as to other possible limitations. For example, depending on the caster, wand, skill, destructive spells can have yields from a small firecracker to 50lb + of high explosive. However is there any true limit? Excluding skill n wand etc limits, does anything prevent a wizard from casting a destructive spell powerful enough to obliterate an entire city in 1 go. *This question infers to instantaneous / rapid destruction like that of a bomb and not progressive like that of fire or decay*
It's pretty clear the conjuration rules exist to prevent everyone being able to conjure a solution to anything and allow an economy to exist in a way that isn't bartering high skill conjured items. Since conjuration is still skill limited, technically a barter economy could exist from specialize conjuration.
I LOVE your videos ❤!!!! It makes me feel so happy watching😊 them!!!
Thank-you!
A while back, 10 or more years ago before Pottermore, Rowling did publish all 5 exceptions. Food, Life, Love, Money, and Information.
I often wonder about the philosophers stone, and horcrux's. Does the wizard or witch continue ageing infinitum, or do you reach a certain point and stop aging?
Interesting video! I'm a writer working on a fantasy comic set at a magic school. I often use Harry Potter discussions to help me work out my magic system. My worldbuilding is very important to me and I wanna cover as much ground as possible. There are some big questions I still need to answer like how does magic influence food production, medicine and disabilities, and crime or laws? It would be easy to make a magic system where magic can produce as much food as needed, or heal any injury/handicap, or even completely prevent crimes. But that is boring! No one wants to read about a utopia where nothing ever goes wrong.
I would guess that this is why Gamp's Law exists in HP though I do have to say I think it's a pretty lazy solution. Why can't food be transfigured? All we're told is that it can't be, but the why isn't answered (as far as I know). Personally, I want the reasons why certain things can't be done to be more satisfying for my magic system.
One thing that no one’s talked about. What about a spell that could imprint one’s memories and personality onto another. Use a spell to suppress another’s mind and another spell to imprint your mind into them. Obviously as you mentioned you can’t erase others or erase there souls. However you could suppress them. This would be a method of exceeding one’s life from a point of view.
wizard poverty makes little sense on a number of levels. if someone can duplicate things or make copies of something, or transfigure something into something else, or whatever method they use. how can any kind of item selling economy exist besides like borgin and burkes and olivanders? they sell essentially completely unique items so i get that. but like, a joke shop? a pet store? can't these wizards just take something with the same molecular or genetic make up that's substantially cheaper and make it into something worth buying? how would you know the book you're buying from school was a real book and not a pile of kindling someone found in a forest? and further more, if they're the same, who would give a damn and how could you make money from it if everyone could do it for themselves? there's a lot of things i don't get
The thing is that in a world where you can create things from air, our current economical system (or any economical system that has ever existed) lacks any sense. But HP its not about economics, so the author just ignores the thing (with a good reason).
The only thing i can imagine about this is that the creation of money is absolutly forbidden and highly monitored, cause it could lead to a massive inflation, destroying the economical system. But still is an incomplete answer.
Nor me. Like you can duplicate food so Molly could for example have one piece of meat one potato one veggie and duplicate a family dinner from that. They also seem to pay no rent or mortgage on their home. Muggles dont know about it so I doubt they pay for facilities as they seem to do without electricity. They seem to not have any of the cost we have in real life. So what then makes wizards poor.
@@marcelsgroot what makes wizards Paul? Personally, when I look at the Wesley, I think a lot of their poverty is simply that they don't manage their resources very well. I mean… They can barely afford to get to school things and they barely have any silver let alone gold in the vault, yet they seem to be able to afford to go and spend Christmas with Bill in Egypt or with Charlie in Romania. So I think for them, I think it's that they manage their resources very badly rather than not actually having resources. As for Lupin? I just think he just doesn't have the resources there. It is possible as well that, visiting society perhaps denies him certain opportunities for magic… I don't know. That one is a little bit weird, and I'd say she wrote it as an allegory for disability. But as usual, she didn't think it through because she never does think things through.
Because magic is a curse like the twilight vampires
Good on the surface but nothing inside
I think the diary is a legit cloning option. If Tom Riddle had drained Ginny's life force, that Tom would returned as a separate entity from main Voldemort, since the only way for them to rejoin their soul fragments would be Voldemort regretting the murder of Myrtle, which seems quite unlikely.
Hey has anyone else notice that each horcux represents one of the 7 books; the ring B1, Nagini B2, locket B3, H’s cup B4, R’s diadem B5, dairy B6, and Harry B7
can you please explain how for the locket, diadem and dairy?
@TbV-st8ef I am just assuming
1) ring is the resurrection stone = sorcerer's stone
2)nagini = basilisk
3) locket = "locked up" as a prisoner
4) cup = goblet
5)diadem is found in the same room that that the DA trained in
6) diary is a book like the potion book owned by HBP
@@samueladams16 ok thx, I couldn't guess for some of them
edit: I realized that you weren't the original commentor lol
@@TbV-st8ef lol no problem, I am only guessing what they meant but those are what my brain connected
And if there are any spells that can do this, they always seem temporary. Fred and george used an aging potion but that was temporary. There are several times animals are conjured but again they are fake and exist temporarily
I was just trying to find an orderly list on this, thank you!
I'm curious about transfixed animals or plants. If a live thing was transfigured, could it be returned to the living animal it once was? I just wonder how wibbly wobbly magic can get, as it seems there is a lot of hidden magic.
There are unforgiveable curses, and I get that... but, you can incindio or confringo someone, then arresto momentum them and watch them burn in super slow motion... I can think of a few others, but you get the idea.
Ah, found a video from you on my recommended page after 1 year.
Welcome back!
I wonder if there can be a workaround for Gamp's law? I suggest a cabinet or fridge. Whenever you grip the handle to open the door, the cabinet knows your intent. If you want to add food, a place is available to put it. Once the door is closed again, the inserted food goes into a space inside the cabinet and is frozen in time. If you want anything that is in the cabinet, a duplicate of the time frozen food is conjured when the handle is grasped.
Magic can’t heal poor Alice and Frank. 🍬
The candy emoji hits hard 😢
wonder if you can basically transfigure bad tasting food into tasting better if you don't gain or lessen caloric content
if goblins are so closely related to wizardly money, it could be assumed that possibly theres something innately magical about their currency? like the metal material used in the creation of the Sword Of Gryffindor. And possibly that relates to Gamps Law and the money theory?
especially since goblins have innate magical abilities stronger than most wizards
Yes, and it's clear that goblins are also closely related to wizards biologically as well. After all… If the likes of Filius Flitwick has only a "-" of goblin blood in him, clearly wizards and goblins are able to interbreed and produce viable offspring. And this is evidenced by the fact that Flitwick is less than half goblin. Anyway, all that to say, that if wizards and goblins are that close biologically that they can produce viable offspring when they are interbreed, then it stands to reason that magically they would be closely related as well.
The part regarding aging is partly incorrect, as magic can make you older. In the Hogwarts Legacy game one of the professors says she was wounded by time itself, resulting in her looking older than she should be.
Gold can be "replicaed"; whats more likely than not merely being able to conjure gold, is not being able to conjure something like noble metals
I didn't read all the comments but a couple things about some things that I did read. Yes the Gemino curse can multiply wealth to a degree like in the Deathly hallows. But as stated by Griphook its not an exact duplicate. Even if it was permanent as Griphook said it would have no real value. The Potion Ingredients probably have at least a connection to the Food Law. For one thing most if not all come from either some kind of plant or Animal. Also Yes you cant create them it seams but you also cant duplicate them it would seem that's why you always have too buy more once you use them up.
I think it would also be useful to mention here that If you remember When Harry and Dumbledore went to recruit Slughorn After gathering back up the dragons blood Horace looked at it and said it was cloudy or something like that but might be good for one more use. So that means certain substances cant fully be cleaned or removed at least not when mixed with others.
I think living forever could be possible in that world because the horcrux exists. It might be possible to do what other fantasy genres have done and have a wizard remove their entire soul to a phylactery thus protecting the soul and the wizard would become a lich, an undead magical being; rotting but still alive.
I am confused as to Hermione, making Canaries, she even use that spell to have them all Ron when she was mad at him. I think they were proof in the movie when they ate something, but the books I think that they remain. When does the Canary go from an animal to food?
Background music??
This is a very good one!
Muni my problem not mentioned so far is the twins aging themselves and it having to be corrected if I remember correctly in the books
Yeah
Ive got a question. Why would tom riddle sr drink anything that someone who lives in a shack gives to him. Did she use an unforgivable curse on him in order to make him drink it the first time?
i love this guys voice its so soothing 🗿
A very Good Video 👍🏻
Curses can be treated, just need the proper counter curse. Snape knew the counter-curse to Sectum Sempra, and was able to use it on Draco, but no one else did, and so George couldn't be treated.
Perfect explaination!❤
Death is possibly to be avoided, as you explained with Flammel and Voldemort. Slughorn told Tom that that Horcrux would make it so he cannot die, hence why Voldemort sought it out.
And technically life and death can be created; The Dementors were created by a Dark Wizard, and even tho that wizard is no longer around, those creatures he made do in fact reproduce on their own and there is seemingly no way to kill them.
Plus the whole "Multiply food" bit contradicts not being able to conjure it. If its being cut into pieces, then it's not being multiplied, its being divided. Multiplying food is creating more of the same food from nothing.
Dementors are not considered living creatures. They are amortal non beings. They were never born, they were never alive, they can never die since they were never alive, and come into existence from human emotions.
I think when it's said that you can increase the quantity of food, it means that you can have more food if you already have some stored, like having more french fries on your table if you already have potatoes and salt.
Does multiplied food have the same nutritional value?
Always wondered if CPR and a crash cart could reverse the killing curse
It seems to be instant so I think it be doubthfull
I thought the same but, I feel like the killing curse goes deeper than just death of the body. I feel like it more or less destroys/curses the body in some way that the soul of said body can't keep within it. At least that's how I've looked at it 😅
@@jordanshadows3253it works by tearing out the soul violently so youre not wrong
@@absolutedegenerate2992 cool! Lol good to know, thank you 🤠
@@jordanshadows3253 youre welcome
Since they could make more food if they already have some, I've always wondered why, in the last book when they did find food why didn't Hermoine transfigure more of the food so they'd at least have some.
Harry’s mom is a metamorphagus. Her hair clearly changed from purple to red after being sorted. And her grand child, also named Lilly Potter is, by known canon, a metamorphagus. Explain this topic please!
So was the snake Draco conjured up ever a threat to Harry or anybody if it wasn’t “real”
Dumbledore seems to be older than most humans can ever be...
It's already stated in lore that wizards live longer than muggles, just not forever. They seem to have another 50 years on us.
There are some muggles that also lived to 115 but non were still working as headmasters
I noticed you summarized the principle exceptions to Gamp’s Law as: Food, Love, Life, Love, Knowledge. I know Gold/Money was supposed to have been in there. Just letting you know! Otherwise, this video is great. 👍🏼
So Lets Talk about "The integrity" of Coins Also "Diminished" in Canada🇨🇦
To destroy something is more eassy then to create
You compare Wizards to humans - Wizards ARE humans. That is perhaps the biggest and most significant point of the novels - that the deepest and most powerful magic is that which we all in reality have - the ability to love, to form bonds with others...
Wizards are most certainly not Homo-Sapiens. 3 main differences:
1) Lifespan of over 150
2) Immunity to most common diseases & intoxication
3) Access to Magic
Those differences are enough to categorize wizards as their own species, the Homo-Magicus perhaps?
You are failing to recognize basic biology! If two individuals are capable of mating and producing viable offspring, than they are the same species. A wizard and a muggle are perfectly capable of mating and having a baby, therefore they are the same species. There are many factors that can impact lifespan in real life. Diet, stress, and yes, even genetics - but those that are lucky enough to have a combination of genetics that make them live a particularly long time are still very much human!
@@NikonF5user It's not that simple. Tons Individuals from different species are able to reproduce and have viable off spring as long as the reproductive organs and physical autonomy is near identical. Then there are also individuals of the same species which are unable to reproduce, practically. Like a Great Dane and Chihuahua are the same species (canis lupus familiaris) but are practically unable to breed
So just because if wizards were another human species with the only major genetic difference is their cells and their repair function being greatly enhanced, but still structurally the same as a muggle homo sapiens, otherwise their autonomy is the same and the reproductive organs are the same so there's no reason for them not to be able to breed
@@vikkran401It's funny to see your response - I'm a biologist - when teaching about the species concept I discuss Great Danes and Chihuahuas. I think there's much more here in this discussion however suggesting that wizardry is a rare recessive trait rather than a closely related species. In fact, I created a lesson I use with my genetics courses that explains how wizarding genetics could persist in a population in such a way that you have muggleborns descended from generation of muggles!
@7:37 Did this dude really just list “Love” twice on his list of the top 5 things magic cannot conjure? What is the spell for conjuring an editor?
Amortentia would be the perfect perfume though!
Not being able to produce food seems rather arbitrary. What's inherently special about food? The real issue might be that magic can't transfigure organic matter. That would also explain why it can't create life. That doesn't explain how they can multiply food though.
I would have changed some of the limits to these. As many feel like J.K. made the limits to justify class-systems. Like how the Weasleys are so poor. I would reworked the limits into something like what is listed below.
First off I would change Conjuration into being its own branch of magic. That it is made from combining Charms and Transfiguration. That one must charm the non-being into being and simultaneously transfigure it out of the rudimentary stage into something else.
I would have written as “food” can be conjured from thin air. But it would be a very complex field of conjuration. That just like how it takes farmers years to cultivate the land for flora to grow and for fauna to be breed it takes decades to master. To where even Albus couldn’t produce the feasts for the Hogwarts feasts even with the elder wand. And most don’t bother with it as it has no direct combat uses so most consider and unnecessary field to learn when their are much easier charms to compensate for this.
2. Precious metals and minerals. Mostly the same difficulty as Food but also Goblins have innate ability to know if something especially golden, silver, gemstones etc are made from magic. Plus there would be innate charms one can learn to detect this. (Sidenote, some precious metals might be able to be made magically. As the Occamy lays pure silver eggs.)
3. Life. It’s impossible to create humans but possible for most animals just not magical animals.
4. Immortality. I think it should have been more possible like Aging Charms as there is an aging potion. But these Charms are extremely difficult to where the patronus Charm is a first year level in compariso. And also extremely dangerous as one mix up and one can age themselves into dust.
5. Magic items or substances. Typically Magic can’t create anything that is innately magical. Like Wand Cores or finished potions and even if one tries it at best would be like a Unicorn Hair but without any power. Of course there would be exceptions like magical fire or something.
This is all I got for the moment.
The issue I have with the "Golden Rule" is that there are many things that are extraordinarily valuable. Gems, other precious metals, etc... I mean, muggle currency is just cloth and ink. So, not being able to multiply or replicate only gold when other forms of value are available makes little sense. I assume currency transfer between the muggle and wizarding worlds must be possible. Otherwise, how would a child born from two muggle parents (such as Hermoine) pay for her school supplies? With this in mind, making a bar of silver or a platinum necklace to be sold in the muggle world, with the intent of exchanging the proceeds for Gringots gold coins, should be entirely possible. Maybe this "rule" is a morality issue as opposed to a magical impossibility?
A while ago, 10 or so years ago before Pottermore, Rowling did reveal what all 5 exceptions are. Food, Life, Love, Money, and Information.
Well you can repair a split soul but it could be fatal to the person trying to repair their soul.
Fed and George used an aging potion to try to get across Dumbledore's age line in Goblet of Fire.
I'm sure conjured stuff has more limitations than the Gamp's law, otherwise poverty would still not exist in the Wizarding world. If you can't conjure money and food but you still can conjure good new clothes, a big solid house and every item you need in everyday life, why would the Weasleys still live on hand-me-downs? And why would stores and shops in the Magical world exist at all? My guess is that conjured items, just like conjured animals, have a limited, weak and/or temporary reality status. They might dissolve over a short time and/or not carry the same physical properties as the genuine things, or similar limitations.
11:58 The actual line is "There can be only one"
I suppose it’s worth noting the aging potion that the Weasley twins used to try and fool Dumbledore’s age line. However since it didn’t seem to do the job, it’s possible that it ages by form of transfiguration.
Age is physics, not biology. You can't jump forward in time, hence you can't make someone older either. Apart from that orb in the department of mysteries, of course.
🔥 video frrr again luv ur voice
Lupin and Weasleys was poor of two very different reasons. In the Weasley case it was sort of by chose. Molly chosed to be a stay at home mom and take care of the home and kids instead for working and in that way give one more income to the family. Weasleys have what they need to take care of everyone in the family. Lupin however… noone wanted to hire him at al. He had no money at al and honesty how he survived until he meet Tonks I have no idea (and with her income had something to live on)
I would also say mental conditions, look at the Longbottoms and Lockhart
4:53 Well… unless you’re Harry or Voldemort lol. (And can come back from the dead)
It is possible to restore your soul through remorse, it’s just so risky and painful that you’re likely to die before it works. And there’s literally an aging potion that is capable of making the drinker older.
Errm the twins aging potion required them to be treated in order to be reversed..magical aging is feasible
Wands are certainly restricted from being duplicated
The only thing you got wrong was the not being able to repair a split soul. Hermione, in I believe DH1 says that _Remose_ can repair a split soul but it's dangerous.
They probably meant via magical means. There is no spell, that can glue fragments of soul back together.
You said mentioned above, but should have said prior. Let me know if you need a proofreader 😊
Even if gold could be created, the Philosopher's stone would still hold immense value as it can prolong your life by centuries.
@9:57 if the stone only brings back shades then how is Harry truly alive to marry and have a family after coming back alive with the stone on the last book/movie?
Harry didn't come back because of the stone. He avoided death entirely because of the blood bond he shared with Voldemort. A plot point that was briefly explained in the book, and completely ignored in the movie.
You can do anything. But in Harry Potter series, good guys were focused on eating sweets, look at dinner in Hogwarts, absolutly disgusting. They were even using chocolate as medicine. When they not eating sweets, then watching quidditch crap. Evil guys were focused to get power or conquer the school full of kids eating sweets. I think that Voldemort wanted to eat their chocolate supplies. In Grindewald series we had something more, but it's suspended.
About transfiguration, you can't turn ordinary matter (atoms) into food because food is not just matter, it's a specifically bonded form of matter. The molecules simply cannot be formed with magic. You must grow and cook food.
You can't turn one form of matter into another. At least not easily enough to where it's worth the effort for certain matters.
This is true for the "muggle world" as well, while you technically could, with enough energy, turn lead into gold in the real world. The amount of energy needed to do this makes it not worthwhile.
I find that transfiguring a living thing into a cup to be quite laughable. It's a major plot hole and logical paradox. And that form of magic should not exist. Being able to do that but not the other things just doesn't compute and you can't have one without the other.
What you can do with magic is trick any observer of an object or living thing into seeing something completely different.
Also, i am not saying transfiguration between different living forms isn't possible. Like woman to cat or man to dog. But that is a completely different kind of transfiguration magic.
In essence, any transfigurations needs a source material and the amount of energy spent determines just how far you can go with it.
And making duplicates of something (even already existing food) makes two half as dense copies of the original.
Thus, if you duplicate 1 ounce of gold, you end up with two half ounces of gold each.
If you duplicate a burger, you get two burgers that each weigh half as much as the original and might easily fall apart on their own.
If you duplicate a living thing, each copy is half-dead. And not very likely to survive even with the most delicate care.
Not to mention, it would also be pretty much completely brain dead as half a neuron is not enough to trigger a receptor.
In most cases it's a limit of the Wizard be it by knowledge or capability or both more than a limit in magic. Ancient Magic is capable of things that no living Wizard can do and in most cases Even know about.
Since magic is tied to the earth, they cannot leave it. They can't get on a broom and fly to the moon. They cannot summon any object that is not on the earth.
True immortality does seem to be possible through the use of Horcruxes. It's just that there are _so_ many strings attached.
It seems as though a limitation “should” be that one can’t conjure potions out of thin air… otherwise it’s hardly necessary to study potions, ya?
a fragmented soul can be put back together by feeling remorse
11:55 Plants are
It's not much different than in Star Trek, with the replicator technology. It presented a problem when introduced in The Next Generation, so Gene had to make up limitations, otherwise dilithium crystals or currency could be endlessly replicated. The in world explanation is that latinum, the basis for currency among most trade species, was too complicated to replicate without large amounts of energy, which would make it unprofitable to replicate. Dilithium crystals, the material used to stabilize their warp engines, was also too complex to replicate perfectly.
Does Nickolas know more spells then dumbeldore
Absolutely! And that's the thing about magic, it's a curse
What abot snape healing draco malfoy while he is been injured by harry potters spell sectumpsampra for enemies in half blood prince
Snape created both the curse and counter curse for sectumsempra. Vulnera Sanantur which implies if that at least some curses could be healed if you knew the specific counter curse and that Fred's ear could have been saved maybe even no scarring with some ditini