Odin's Raven's

[groinkick]

Who do you think they could be?  Muninn and Huginn are so connected to Odin that he's sometimes called the Raven God.  Their names mean mind, and memory.  They act as his eyes, and ears around the world.  If they are characters within the books, who could you see them being? 

[Griffyn612]

Haven't we met them as his personal assistants outside his office?

[groinkick]

Haven't we met them as his personal assistants outside his office?

doh!  Probably.  I forget a lot of this stuff.

[Con]

uuuh yeah They're in Battle Ground as well. They cold calculate that taking out Harry would reduce Vadderungs survival by 25% which is unacceptable. They're also in a WOJ, Vadderung sends them out to take care of problems Thor and Loki create.

[Mira]

I've only got one thing to say about all of that, "nevermore."

[Yuillegan]

I actually think they did appear in a small cameo all the way back as far as Summer Knight. If you read the passage where Harry first meets the Mothers and sees their cottage, there is a raven outside. Considering the references to Norse mythology and runes in that book - I'd say it was them. Or at least one of them.

We never do seem them as birds otherwise, which is odd. Maybe there are other cameos I have missed. Mostly they take the form of his scary receptionist-bodyguards.

For that matter, where are Odin's wolves Geri and Frekki? The names mean "greedy" and "ravenous". I would like to see them as well...but I doubt it.

I suspect they might be Spirits of Intellect given bodies. Somewhere between being extensions of Odin and being his children.

[Second Aristh]

I suspect they might be Spirits of Intellect given bodies. Somewhere between being extensions of Odin and being his children.

I had this thought as well several years back.  I view them sort of like external hard drives for Odin.  Metaphysically speaking, he sheared them off himself so he's technically weaker, subsequently giving him more freedom to use his power.  At the same time, he's still got them, so is he actually weaker at all?  That's my theory at least.  Odin intentionally handicaps himself to keep his options for acting open.

[Yuillegan]

I had this thought as well several years back.  I view them sort of like external hard drives for Odin.  Metaphysically speaking, he sheared them off himself so he's technically weaker, subsequently giving him more freedom to use his power.  At the same time, he's still got them, so is he actually weaker at all?  That's my theory at least.  Odin intentionally handicaps himself to keep his options for acting open.

If you buy into Serack GUMCT, all the big beings really do is split themselves into smaller off shoots. So it would fit the pattern.

I think the Queens really help with that argument. In many ways they are the same being, but split into three (or perhaps six...). Are they weaker for being many rather than one?

Actually, what am I saying. Not six. It might be infinite. If there is a Mab (and Titania, and Molly and Sarissa etc) in almost every universe, yet the Mother's are the same being in every universe (like Uriel), that suggests there is an infinite number of beings. Which actually makes even more sense. They can act at multiple levels of reality so are more flexible.

In fact, considering what Gard said about Vadderung just being a facet that mortals can deal with, that suggests Vadderung isn't Odin exactly but just another offshoot. In the same way Christ was both the Son of God, and God on Earth. Does that make sense?

Is there are Vadderung in every universe or just one I think would help answer that question.

[Griffyn612]

My guess is that only those outside of time itself are singularities like that. I think the only good guy we've seen like that is Uriel. But maybe not even him.

I do like to think that the Walkers are singularities, and the Queens are not. It would help make sense of Harry's thought in Cold Days, where Mab was a photo, and Before was the statue itself. He senses that Mab is one thing representation of the power that transcends dimensions, whereas Before is all of that power in one being that is aware of all his other existences.

And to clarify, I mean that there could be seven branch realities, and there's a Uriel and a Before in each, and they're all aware of each of their versions, and know what they know.

[Yuillegan]

Apparently the Mothers and major gods like Zeus are at the same level as Uriel.

https://youtu.be/kGgyJNMA4q8?t=728

12:10 is the spot.

I think we haven't yet seen the full scale of the Walkers, based on everything we've been told about them. Apparently He Who Walks Behind is also in the same league as Uriel yet also seems vastly lesser. He apparently has all sorts of weird limits about when and where he can use his power, but still. My guess it the Walkers might not even be separate beings, or potentially are merely avatars of larger beings.

One Uriel, one Zeus, One Walker, One Mother etc across the multiverse. But that doesn't mean they don't have a bunch of little avatars and off-shoots all over the place. In many ways, the Faerie model might explain it best.

Mother Winter is the source, but she has lesser facets (the Mab in each universe), and an even smaller facet (the Lady in each universe) and then all the millions of Winter Fae in all the universes.

Could well be only seven branch realities, although Jim keeps referring to it like radio channels, so it feels like there is infinite numbers (or very close). Choices happening all over the place creates a lot of possible places. Times that by all of mortal history, by the entire population ever...it gets pretty ludicrous. And that's just one universe. If each universe keeps spawning more universes the problem is simply beyond comprehension. I personally would prefer only a few realities as that would make choice seem more important. But I am not sure it's so easy.

[Basil]

The Multiverse as a trope has always irritated me.  Just makes a mess of everything and drains the stakes out of any story.  After all, there is always some universe within the multiverse where the protagonist made the "right choice" and their lost love still lives, etc., etc.

Also, I don't like the multiverse because physicists made it up in an attempt to avoid confronting the metaphysical impact of their discoveries.

[Griffyn612]

The Multiverse as a trope has always irritated me.  Just makes a mess of everything and drains the stakes out of any story.  After all, there is always some universe within the multiverse where the protagonist made the "right choice" and their lost love still lives, etc., etc.

Also, I don't like the multiverse because physicists made it up in an attempt to avoid confronting the metaphysical impact of their discoveries.

I too hate a multiverse, in regards to actual reality. In fiction, I hate infinite multiverse. But I can appreciate a well-structured and purposeful splinterverse, especially when there are specific laws it obeys.

But to do that, a writer has to commit to rules, and often they won't because they like the idea of a mirrorverse or a mirrorverse character too much, so they preserve something, which breaks a rule, and then it's all hogwash.

[BrainFireBob]

The Multiverse as a trope has always irritated me.  Just makes a mess of everything and drains the stakes out of any story.  After all, there is always some universe within the multiverse where the protagonist made the "right choice" and their lost love still lives, etc., etc.

Also, I don't like the multiverse because physicists made it up in an attempt to avoid confronting the metaphysical impact of their discoveries.

Do you know what happens with quantum entanglement, or how quantum encryption works- or are you familiar with the Born interpretation of the Schrodinger equation.

Multiverse is a decent theoretical explanation for why matter demonstrates waveform superposition distributions and interference/coupling patterns.

[Basil]

Do you know what happens with quantum entanglement, or how quantum encryption works- or are you familiar with the Born interpretation of the Schrodinger equation.

Multiverse is a decent theoretical explanation for why matter demonstrates waveform superposition distributions and interference/coupling patterns.

Disclaimer:  I'm an aerospace engineer that crossed trained as a lawyer.  So you seem about to get into the weeds past where I'm competent to trade blows with you.

That being said...

I am familiar with quantum entanglement and quantum encryption.  I have clients whose technology relies on quantum entanglement to create quasi-particles (like polaritons) that are then used in various applications ranging from quantum encryption and quantum computing to more exotic uses.  To assist their work, I have to half-way understand this stuff, although I was warned that only a dozen people on the planet actually "understand." 

I'm obviously familiar with the Schrodinger's equation, but I had to look up the Born interpretation. (Always good to learn something new). 

As for a theoretical explanation for why matter demonstrates waveform superposition distributions, etc., I'm aware that this is one of the postulated explanation for not really explicable collapse of wave functions.

This explanation has always dissatisfied me.  The uncertainty principle and the measurement problem are uncomfortable, but it seems un-parsimonious to postulate an infinite set of universes with all of their associated mass and energy just to cover up the fact that we can't know where an electron is and where it's going at the same time. 

My understanding is that while the Schrodinger equation is linear, wave collapse is not and so you just go round and round and round arguing about the probability function relating to the branch where we exist and the probability function of the particle to be observed. 

Worse, the attempts to use this concept to come up with a measurable observation (typically, trying to show the cosmological constant is a result of multiple universes) have failed. 

Smarter people than me, such as Sabine Hossenfelder, have explained why the multiverse/multiple worlds hypothesis is not science. 

Bringing this back around to my original post, the metaphysical impact that the multiverse/many worlds idea was intended to avoid is simply the fact of a cosmic beginning. 

[BrainFireBob]

Disclaimer:  I'm an aerospace engineer that crossed trained as a lawyer.  So you seem about to get into the weeds past where I'm competent to trade blows with you.

That being said...

I am familiar with quantum entanglement and quantum encryption.  I have clients whose technology relies on quantum entanglement to create quasi-particles (like polaritons) that are then used in various applications ranging from quantum encryption and quantum computing to more exotic uses.  To assist their work, I have to half-way understand this stuff, although I was warned that only a dozen people on the planet actually "understand." 

I'm obviously familiar with the Schrodinger's equation, but I had to look up the Born interpretation. (Always good to learn something new). 

As for a theoretical explanation for why matter demonstrates waveform superposition distributions, etc., I'm aware that this is one of the postulated explanation for not really explicable collapse of wave functions.

This explanation has always dissatisfied me.  The uncertainty principle and the measurement problem are uncomfortable, but it seems un-parsimonious to postulate an infinite set of universes with all of their associated mass and energy just to cover up the fact that we can't know where an electron is and where it's going at the same time. 

My understanding is that while the Schrodinger equation is linear, wave collapse is not and so you just go round and round and round arguing about the probability function relating to the branch where we exist and the probability function of the particle to be observed. 

Worse, the attempts to use this concept to come up with a measurable observation (typically, trying to show the cosmological constant is a result of multiple universes) have failed. 

Smarter people than me, such as Sabine Hossenfelder, have explained why the multiverse/multiple worlds hypothesis is not science. 

Bringing this back around to my original post, the metaphysical impact that the multiverse/many worlds idea was intended to avoid is simply the fact of a cosmic beginning.

Born, like Pauli, is one of those who understood the math, instead of just how to use the math. Bohr was another, as was Dirac. Dirac's sense of humor was Dad jokes on steroids, though- I still sometimes eyeroll over bra and ket notation

The basic issue is quantum tunneling is an observed, measured phenomenon. The major issue with the multiverse, as I recall- I started in physics and moved into engineering- is that it inherently postulates infinite duplication of energy into infinite universes. But the alternative is that reality itself is fundamentally unfixed at the quantum level, and can- with low probability- just shift into a different possible state/configuration. Which doesn't really square with collective human experience.

In terms of fiction- personally, I don't mind Moorcock's take- where it was a vehicle for the weird and insane- though Marvel/DC's are for easy mode. Jordan's take was also decent- test models for reality- but that's not surprising, he was a physicist by training.