PDA

View Full Version : Sufficiently advanced magic



taltamir
2010-07-17, 04:00 AM
I often hear the saying "any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology"

This has been bothering me for a while now... I mainly have to ask, what is magic?

Is magic the breaking of natural rules? this is the most common explanation for magic, the problem with that is that it is inconsistent, if you are breaking the natural rules then science is limited only to the most general of principles (namely, you can conclude scientifically that magic is the breaking of natural rules; and is unpredictable, chaotic, and cannot be reduced to immutable laws)... you cannot scientifically derive the immutable laws of reality because there are no immutable laws of reality, you can bend or break them... they are changing.

But what if magic is actually a part of the natural order of a hypothetical world, and not the breaking of it...
If magic is merely a natural force that exists in a hypothetical world different then our own, then it is equivalent to saying "any sufficiently advanced gravity is indistinguishable from science/technology". etc. this is a nonsense sentence.
well, what if magic is an energy? well, this runs into pretty much the same problem.
So if it is neither an energy nor a force, yet it is part of the natural laws of reality, then what is it? well it could be a discipline where its practitioners manipulate energy and matter via their minds in accordance to the immutable natural laws of reality?
Well, this actually works, in such a situation, it could be treated as a science or an art by its practitioners, and eventually be performed in ways indistinguishable from our own scientific advances... although the requirement of manipulating energy with your mind still seems a bit iffy and quite a huge limitation on the whole thing. you are extremely limited by the minds of individuals in what you can do with it... you can't just set up machinery that casts a spell over and over in a production line, for example. this would mean that any magic items / magic creatures are not really magic, because you aren't using your mind... and any definition that doesn't include energy manipulation via the mind CAN be applied to real and mundane things... for example, math, cooking, etc.

and If the requirement is merely that it be "supernatural", then you run into the problem that if something is "super natural" it means it goes against the natural laws of the universe... aka, it is impossible to analyze the supernatural scientifically by its very definition... if it IS possible, then you merely mistook a completely natural phenomenon to be supernatural in origin...

So, when next you hear "any sufficiently advanced magic"... keep some caveats in mind.

PS. if anyone has a different possible definition for magic, please share it.

Watchers
2010-07-17, 04:04 AM
Isn't it typically the other way around?

Milskidasith
2010-07-17, 04:04 AM
Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology is, in fact, the converse of the original statement, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. As you may have learned and/or forgotten from math class, the converse of a statement is not necessarily true; in this case, magic can easily look nothing at all like technology, while very advanced technology will look like magic to those who don't understand.

taltamir
2010-07-17, 04:07 AM
Isn't it typically the other way around?

A sci fi author (I forgot which one) wrote a long time ago that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...
A bunch of fantasy fans, wiccans, and and sci-fi-fantansy fans decided to come up with the inverse, saying that once magic is sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from technology / science.
I think that this converse statement is not as straight forward, and will not be true under many hypothetical circumstances.

Watchers
2010-07-17, 04:09 AM
Arthur C. Clarke, and I've never heard of this new law. Clearly it's not worth hearing about, as it is flawed.

Milskidasith
2010-07-17, 04:10 AM
A sci fi author wrote a long time ago that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...
A bunch of fantasy fans, wiccans, and and sci-fi-fantansy fans decided to come up with the inverse, saying that once magic is sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from technology / science.
I think that this converse statement is not as straight forward, and will not be true under many hypothetical circumstances.

The statement is not the inverse, the statement is the converse. :smallamused:

Anyway, of course it's not necessarily true. The converse of a statement, unlike the contrapositive, is not always the same truth value (true or false) as the original statement. An example:

All squares are rectangles.

The converse:

All rectangles are squares.

One is true, the other is false.

Of course, it still can have the same value, for instance:

All squares are made of ice cream

All ice cream is made of squares

Both are false.

In this case, the original statement is true (technology so advanced that you can't figure out how it works essentially is magic), while the converse is false (If a guy makes a fireball out of nowhere with no obvious machinery, I don't think "He has invisible fire gloves" I think "He's god damned Ryu.")

Mikeavelli
2010-07-17, 04:12 AM
I always thought this quote was referring to the tendency of very high magic settings to do stuff with magic that we do with technology.

Magic trains, magic cars, magic airplanes, magic telephones, etc.

olentu
2010-07-17, 04:13 AM
Taking the example of D&D really don't see why one could not do science on D&D magic. I mean that is basically what wizards do. Once that is accomplished one can make some technology with that knowledge.

Harperfan7
2010-07-17, 04:20 AM
For a long time, I just said that magic was 5th dimensional energy that flooded the world the first time dimensions/planes were breached.

Then I learned a lot about science and decided that magic is the result of (you guessed it) "sufficiently advanced technology" that no one except maybe the gods understands. Maybe its nanomachines in the blood of every living thing that can produce the effects of magic, maybe the rules of physics were rewritten by some super technologically advanced being/race to make life easier/more interesting.

I can't help but see technology behind everything now, whether fictional magic, god(s), you name it.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-17, 05:16 AM
Arthur C. Clarke, and I've never heard of this new law. Clearly it's not worth hearing about, as it is flawed.

The reverse, about sufficiently advanced magic, is stated by Ponder Stibbons, one of Terry Pratchett's characters, in a clear homage to Clarke.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-17, 05:22 AM
Magic is science. one tablespoon of bat quano plus three grams sulpher, along with hand position 4b=fireball, the same time every time.
Magic is technology. A skeleton in a tread-wheel has the advantage of a prisoner in that the you don't need to feed the skeleton and it smells less.
Magic is potential. There is a potential for there to be a fire at so and so coordinates of such and such a temperature. It is a very low potential, which is why you must use your potential, your force of will, to make it so.
Magic is bull****. In fact, it is so great a bull****, you are pulling one over on the universe.

taltamir
2010-07-17, 05:23 AM
I always thought this quote was referring to the tendency of very high magic settings to do stuff with magic that we do with technology.

Magic trains, magic cars, magic airplanes, magic telephones, etc.

only possible if magic is NOT the violation of natural laws, but some sort of action that is happening within the natural laws (which just happen to differ from our own)
in which case calling it a "magic car" is akin to us calling our cars "gravity car", because gravity is a law of our universe.

There is also the issue that as soon as you constrain magic with laws it loses a significant amount of what it can do. Although some authors do that and stick with whatever laws they made.
AKA "Magic A is Magic A"

mint
2010-07-17, 05:27 AM
A more fun take on the saying is "any sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from science".

A very clever dude wrote about science fiction and fantasy, paraphrasing "at the heart of a science fiction world lies and answer, at the heart of a fantasy lies a question"

Snake-Aes
2010-07-17, 05:53 AM
One mistake people often commit is thinking that science explains why things are what they are. At its core it doesn't. Much more important is understanding how the subject works, and what can be done with it.
So, not being able to answer "why does magic work?", they answer "what can I expect from magic?" and "what can I do with magic?"

Wizards are scientists of magic. By the quality of a researcher's personality, wizards make excellent academics and researchers of anything else. It's very likely, for example, that a prominent wizard is also a dedicated urban engineer or biologist. They won't stop using magic just because they don't know where it is from.

Math_Mage
2010-07-17, 05:59 AM
The reverse, about sufficiently advanced magic, is stated by Ponder Stibbons, one of Terry Pratchett's characters, in a clear homage to Clarke.

Also Larry Niven, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niven%27s_laws#Niven.27s_Law_.28re:_Clarke.27s_Thi rd_Law.29) who put it more precisely: "Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology." Once magic has rules, it's just computer programming, except that we can't see the hardware we're interfacing with.


A more fun take on the saying is "any sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from science".

Slight conflation of terms there. Science is a method. Magic is a phenomenon. Apply science to magic, and approach technology.


A very clever dude wrote about science fiction and fantasy, paraphrasing "at the heart of a science fiction world lies and answer, at the heart of a fantasy lies a question"

You know, I can't remember who said that, but I remember reading it.

taltamir
2010-07-17, 07:06 AM
A more fun take on the saying is "any sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from science".

yes, said by "agatha heterodine", the titular character of the comic girl genious by phil foglio. on the following page, on panel 6:
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205
You should note that it was a FILLER page, not part of the plot canon.

it is a little better... but still somewhat problematic.
All sufficient analysis would reveal about some magic systems, is that they cannot be analyzed scientifically because they are wholly supernatural and do not abide by any consistent laws.

which is in itself a law... I actually observed once that chaos and order are infinitely recursive... if you have chaos, then by definition you can find some order in there, namely, that it is chaos.


One mistake people often commit is thinking that science explains why things are what they are. At its core it doesn't. Much more important is understanding how the subject works, and what can be done with it.
Science is:
1. The notion of NOT believing what you are told without proof
2. The notion of NOT putting ANY worth in a person's position and authority, only in fact and proof.
3. The notion of solving problems in a structured manner
4. The notion that there are inherent laws of reality that do not change.
5. The notion that you can and should attempt to figure out said laws, by observation, and by setting up specific conditions (And then observing)
6. The notion that you should share your knowledge, and learn from others. That hoarding the knowledge for your own personal gain while pretending to be a "sorcerer" or some such only means every person has to start learning from scratch, and knowledge cannot be built upon prior knowledge, as such, not long term advancement can be made.

Scientific reasoning can thus be applied to anything, even the supernatural... but in the case of a truly supernatural phenomenon, all you would be able to conclude is that it is supernatural, and as such impossible to analyze in a scientific manner...
that being said, you can analyze it in an ALMOST scientific manner, by following the things on the list that are not rendered null and void by its supernatural status.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-17, 07:08 AM
which is in itself a law... I actually observed once that chaos and order are infinitely recursive... if you have chaos, then by definition you can find some order in there, namely, that it is chaos.

Where they are so chaotic by default? Definitely not in vancian.

taltamir
2010-07-17, 07:14 AM
Where they are so chaotic by default? Definitely not in vancian.

who is talking about vanacian? there is a grand total of 1 vanacian gaming system... DnD.
And if you do NOT count authors who write DnD fiction, then there is only 1 author who wrote a vanacian system in his books... vance himself.
(there are a plethora of people who write DnD based fiction though... but that is a whole different issue)

Did you see just how many movies, books, etc come out with "magic" in one form or another every year?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-17, 07:35 AM
most magics that are usable by players are very strict anyway. If magic was completely uncontrollable, it'd hardly make something appropriate for playing.
And most tales' display on chaotic magic are more on the lines that the users themselves don't dominate the thing.
the premise of magic being too chaotic to be "scienced" doesn't work in any scenario where the number of magic users in the world is on the single digits.

Douglas
2010-07-17, 07:37 AM
This has been bothering me for a while now... I mainly have to ask, what is magic?

Is magic the breaking of natural rules? this is the most common explanation for magic, the problem with that is that it is inconsistent, if you are breaking the natural rules then science is limited only to the most general of principles (namely, you can conclude scientifically that magic is the breaking of natural rules; and is unpredictable, chaotic, and cannot be reduced to immutable laws)... you cannot scientifically derive the immutable laws of reality because there are no immutable laws of reality, you can bend or break them... they are changing.
It's really quite simple: magic is the breaking of natural rules as those rules exist in our own actual reality, provided the breakage is not being done entirely by machines and devices. In its own world magic is quite natural, but that is only because the natural laws of that world are different from ours, and that difference from our world is what makes it all magic. Having complicated machines do the breaking typically makes it scifi instead, though.

Matthew
2010-07-17, 07:39 AM
This reminds me a bit of a previous thread you might find of interest: [Generic] The Nature of Magic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81946).

I think a lot of it rests on how you define terms like "natural", "preternatural" and "supernatural". Technically, I suppose, nothing can exist that is not natural by the definition of its being, but that kind of misses the point of "supernatural", which has the connotation "from somewhere else" or "otherworldly". We are certainly used to the idea that other planes of existence can have completely different physical laws, but if we bind that all up in an idea of the "natural multiverse" then supernatural may have no valid meaning.

Spells do appear to be relatively predictable in D20/3e, with saving throws reflecting resistances more than probabilities of success and failure. As long as you can see the probabilities, and if you assume them to be accurately modelling the universe rather than a representative "best fit", then there are observations you can make about magic, given a large enough sample and repeat conditions.

A sleep spell cast on a goblin has a percentage chance of success represented by the goblin's saving throw, but quite what exactly happens to make it a success one time and a failure another is left in the murky realm of a die throw.

Radar
2010-07-17, 08:07 AM
There are two main possibilities:
1. Magic is an act of a concious being.
In this case, it's unpredictible unless someone is able to either communicate dirctly with said being, or develop some sort of xenopsychology to study said being through it's actions.

2. Magic just is (or is connected with a non-sentient being).
If anyone can shape magic in any form, then experiments can be made on it. Even if results of a single experiment is random, a lot of information can be gained and exploited from statistical analysis (if we do X, we are more likely to obtain Y). If not, it means, that magic in fact cannot be shaped and is just a static (or fluctuating) background (not unlike quanum vacuum, but much stronger).

Fortuna
2010-07-17, 08:21 AM
Note that case 1 can be considered an advanced, more complicated form of case two unless one subscribes to Cartesian duality or a similar concept. That is to say, one might as well only consider it in its practical applications and not its theoretical implications.

Radar
2010-07-17, 08:32 AM
Note that case 1 can be considered an advanced, more complicated form of case two unless one subscribes to Cartesian duality or a similar concept. That is to say, one might as well only consider it in its practical applications and not its theoretical implications.
It might, or it might not. The problem is, that if said being is not bound with the reality, it could in fact be unconnected with matter and make the Cartesian duality true. It might even come to such an extreme, that it is not bound by any rules whatsover. Even if such a situation could be studied, it would require equally unbound mind to comprehend.

Fortuna
2010-07-17, 08:35 AM
It might, or it might not. The problem is, that if said being is not bound with the reality, it could in fact be unconnected with matter and make the Cartesian duality true. It might even come to such an extreme, that it is not bound by any rules whatsover. Even if such a situation could be studied, it would require equally unbound mind to comprehend.

Forgive me: Cartesian duality was the wrong choice.

Essentially, if case 2 includes random behaviour modified by actions, then ultimately that includes your proposed xenopsychology, and hence case 1.

Radar
2010-07-17, 08:43 AM
Forgive me: Cartesian duality was the wrong choice.

Essentially, if case 2 includes random behaviour modified by actions, then ultimately that includes your proposed xenopsychology, and hence case 1.
I see your point, but there still is the same catch: there might be rules and reasoning, but we might lack at least processing power (if not simply a distinctively different way of thinking) to uncover them.

Consider, that whatever we are able to think up, it is connected with our world. Our imagination and thus theories are vastly limited by our perception. There might be bounderies to what are we able to comprehed. I still believe, we can comprehend our universe, but we might not be able to study properly anything, that is not bound by our physics.

It might still be case 2, just unattainable for our limited minds.

edit: random behavior of a non-sentient system follows essentialy an unchangable probability distribution (governed by experiment parameters) and only because of that, it can be studied.

taltamir
2010-07-17, 09:22 AM
It's really quite simple: magic is the breaking of natural rules as those rules exist in our own actual reality, provided the breakage is not being done entirely by machines and devices. In its own world magic is quite natural, but that is only because the natural laws of that world are different from ours, and that difference from our world is what makes it all magic. Having complicated machines do the breaking typically makes it scifi instead, though.

which is one of the possibilities I described.
Under which a "magic car" is as silly as saying "a gravity car" and saying "sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable technology" is akin to saying "sufficiently advanced gravity is indistinguishable technology"

Kurald Galain
2010-07-17, 09:32 AM
Under which a "magic car" is as silly as saying "a gravity car" and saying "sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable technology" is akin to saying "sufficiently advanced gravity is indistinguishable technology"

Huh? Gravity doesn't advance, it just pulls you.

taltamir
2010-07-17, 09:35 AM
Huh? Gravity doesn't advance, it just pulls you.

thats the whole point. gravity is one of the forces in our universe, just like magic is "just a natural force" in the hypothetical type A universe. (but not in type B, C, or D which I listed)

Douglas
2010-07-17, 09:43 AM
which is one of the possibilities I described.
Under which a "magic car" is as silly as saying "a gravity car" and saying "sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable technology" is akin to saying "sufficiently advanced gravity is indistinguishable technology"
Except that magic is a hell of a lot more complicated and flexible (in the vast majority of fantasy stories, anyway) than gravity, and the term 'magic' usually includes the myriad ways to use it rather than just referring to the energy/force/whatever itself. In a system where magic is part of the natural world, "magic car" is much more synonymous with "technological car" than with "gravity car". "Gravity car" would be more analogous to something like "magical lift force number 3, beta variant, car", except the people in the setting would probably have a much more concise term for that specific aspect of magic if it were commonly used.

Magic as a concept is vastly broader than gravity, and is better equated to terms like science or technology, and the term "technological car" only seems silly to us because in our world there is no other kind of car so the phrase is absurdly redundant.

LibraryOgre
2010-07-17, 09:47 AM
I would say that "sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology" is not correct; epic-level magic is quite usually very distinguishable from technology.

I think it is more accurate to say "Any sufficiently common magic is indistinguishable from technology."

I should be clear, here, that "magic" can mean both the natural force and the various bodies of knowledge which use that natural force. Spells are magic, and manipulate magic. Potions are magic, and are of magic. Technology is usually used to describe real-world naturalistic technology, but can also be applied to any collection of tools and techniques for utilizing forces... including what we called "magic". Swords are technologies, as are spells.

In some games (both in the sense of game worlds and games-as-played-by-people), a great number of magics are common technologies. A good example is Tamriel (the world of Oblivion and Morrowind, as well as Daggerfall and Arena, to a lesser extent). Spells are relatively available, and everyone can, in theory, master the simple magics of everyday life, or make use of the natural magical properties of alchemical ingredients. Some people and races are better at magic... but some people are stronger or faster, too.

Other games, magic is an Art that defies ready categorization, like oWoD Mage. The various hedge magics and sorceries are technologies... obscure, yes, but technologies that people can learn and practice... but True Magic in oWoD transcends it... it's not just "using a part of reality to affect another part of reality" but "making reality do what it doesn't want to do." While you can learn technique and such from others, the true ability comes from within.

So, yeah, I'm going to go back with "Any sufficiently common magic is indistinguishable from technology."

mint
2010-07-17, 09:54 AM
Where I'm from, a class in religious studies is mandatory for graduation from high school. I had to take it the the other year.
It was kind of an ordeal but one of the more interesting things we got to learn was about the origins of religion and the needs it meets in a society.

So anyway, this goes into myths as explanations of a world we are wired to attempt to make sense of. Magic from this point of view is the method used to affect the world and mechanisms in the framework of available myths.
I think I disagree with the original premise of the OP, that magic breaks the laws of nature.
Because Magic is a concept originates from a paradigm where the there are no laws of nature in the way we know them, derived from the scientific method.

Does that make sense at all?

taltamir
2010-07-17, 09:55 AM
Except that magic is a hell of a lot more complicated and flexible (in the vast majority of fantasy stories, anyway) than gravity, and the term 'magic' usually includes the myriad ways to use it rather than just referring to the energy/force/whatever itself. In a system where magic is part of the natural world, "magic car" is much more synonymous with "technological car" than with "gravity car". "Gravity car" would be more analogous to something like "magical lift force number 3, beta variant, car", except the people in the setting would probably have a much more concise term for that specific aspect of magic if it were commonly used.

Magic as a concept is vastly broader than gravity, and is better equated to terms like science or technology, and the term "technological car" only seems silly to us because in our world there is no other kind of car so the phrase is absurdly redundant.

This post grossly misrepresents both technology and especially science. Furthermore, it is far too vague about what magic is except as describing as being "broad".


I think I disagree with the original premise of the OP, that magic breaks the laws of nature.

That wasn't the premise it all, that was merely one out of 4 separate and conflicting possible definitions of the word magic I could come up with. The premise was that the statement about sufficiently advanced magic is a bad statement for all of those.

Douglas
2010-07-17, 10:06 AM
This post grossly misrepresents both technology and especially science.
Science? Maybe. I can see how my post might be interpreted to say that magic is outside the domain of science, which it manifestly is not. I'm not seeing the misrepresentation of technology, though.


Furthermore, it is far too vague about what magic is except as describing as being "broad".
That's because 'magic', in the absence of a specific setting to base the discussion on, is inherently a vague term because there's nothing even close to universal consensus about it. But, if you really want a definition, I can try to make up a suitably non-specific one:

Magic:
1) Noun. The energy, force, or other (non-device-based) means by which (usually) sentient members of a fictional fantasy setting accomplish things that are not scientifically possible in the real world.
2) Noun. The study, use, and means of use of 1).
3) Adjective. Produced by or related to 1).


That wasn't the premise it all, that was merely one out of 4 separate and conflicting possible definitions of the word magic I could come up with. The premise was that the statement about sufficiently advanced magic is a bad statement for all of those.
I think the statement works pretty well for part 2 of my definition in this post.

Math_Mage
2010-07-17, 02:38 PM
thats the whole point. gravity is one of the forces in our universe, just like magic is "just a natural force" in the hypothetical type A universe. (but not in type B, C, or D which I listed)

A better example would be comparing the term "magic car" to the term "electric car". In each case, some natural force is harnessed by artificial manipulation for the purpose of transportation. What makes magic different from electricity is the apparent lack of connection between the manipulation and the natural force being harnessed. What do you mean, he can say a word and wiggle his fingers to make it go? Once a broad explanation has been established to make that connection, once a theory of magic has been defined, then and only then does magic become indistinguishable from any other tool employed by engineers and studied by scientists.

taltamir
2010-07-18, 01:37 AM
in the case of electric car, it refers to the energy source, not the electromagnetic force. (which is why we say electric car and not electromagnetic car)
magic being a type of energy (rather then a force) was actually one of the options I suggested. In which case you could say a magic car (a car powered by the energy of magic), but you still run into problems with the sufficiently analyzed part. (A sufficiently analyzed electricity is indistinguishable from technology)... than again, maybe it only sounds silly to me because we now know electricity to not be supernatural (aka, "thor /zeos is angry")

Math_Mage
2010-07-18, 02:44 AM
in the case of electric car, it refers to the energy source, not the electromagnetic force. (which is why we say electric car and not electromagnetic car)
magic being a type of energy (rather then a force) was actually one of the options I suggested. In which case you could say a magic car (a car powered by the energy of magic), but you still run into problems with the sufficiently analyzed part. (A sufficiently analyzed electricity is indistinguishable from technology)... than again, maybe it only sounds silly to me because we now know electricity to not be supernatural (aka, "thor /zeos is angry")

Meep. Let's try a different paradigm.

Technology is the exploitation of phenomena we understand in order to produce practical effects.

Science is the analysis of that which we do not understand in order to understand it.

Then, what can magic be but the manipulation of that which we do not understand in order to produce practical effects? "An art that invokes supernatural powers", as the WorldNet dictionary puts it.

To go back to my earlier analogy about computer programming, there's at least three stages to that. Science discovers the physical principles that underlie a computer. Technology builds the hardware and software. And then there's the end user. Wizards are like the end user, without any of the understanding that led to the hardware and software to begin with. It's like someone who's never seen a computer before trying to use the Command Line interface. Some things work, and become ritual. Some things don't, and become taboo.

Then magic is the computer that wizards use to do their work. Magic is technology without the scientific foundation. Have you read Asimov's Foundation? Trying not to spoil anything, but a large part of the book is focused on the transformation of science into a religion, of cancer medicine into the Holy Food and so on. People operating without understanding of what they're doing, just following ritual and getting results.

But then, that religion was headed by people who did understand the scientific underpinnings. They needed the science first, and made magic out of the resulting technology. So how do wizards begin practicing magic without the analogue of scientific principles? That is the question I cannot answer.

taltamir
2010-07-18, 02:56 AM
Then magic is the computer that wizards use to do their work. Magic is technology without the scientific foundation. Have you read Asimov's Foundation? Trying not to spoil anything, but a large part of the book is focused on the transformation of science into a religion, of cancer medicine into the Holy Food and so on. People operating without understanding of what they're doing, just following ritual and getting results.

A very good interpretation, I like it :P
Kinda like cargo cults.

To be all inclusive, I recognized that different stories use different and conflicting definitions of magic, and checked the applicability of the saying for each.

The one you came up with does indeed occur in some stories (especially in ones with magitech), and I think that in that explanation, sufficiently analyzed (via science) magic is indeed technology. Bravo, you win an internet cookie.

EDIT: But when I think about it, this all comes out to the original saying... "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"... under your explanation, magic is not "magical" at all, but merely "sufficiently advanced technology" whose users do not understand it, and merely use it.
It is similar to the "magic" IRL used by charlatans to exploit superstitious villagers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Kovoor

I dub this "Type E setting" (since A through D are already taken).

Math_Mage
2010-07-18, 03:38 AM
A very good interpretation, I like it :P
Kinda like cargo cults.

To be all inclusive, I recognized that different stories use different and conflicting definitions of magic, and checked the applicability of the saying for each.

The one you came up with does indeed occur in some stories (especially in ones with magitech), and I think that in that explanation, sufficiently analyzed (via science) magic is indeed technology. Bravo, you win an internet cookie.

Yay! *om nom nom*


EDIT: But when I think about it, this all comes out to the original saying... "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"... under your explanation, magic is not "magical" at all, but merely "sufficiently advanced technology" whose users do not understand it, and merely use it.

I dub this "Type E setting" (since A through D are already taken)

This is true, I suppose. The analogy ends up being a direct translation of Clarke's 3rd Law, which is kind of cheating since I'm using it to define the terms involved. Since there may be magic that does not correspond to that analogy, the converse is not demonstrated.

What is it to be 'magical'? The answer to that question determines the paradigm.

Roderick_BR
2010-07-18, 04:06 AM
Dunno. Making energy or objects (evokation and summoning) suddenly comming out of nowhere, or controlling creature's minds (illusion and charm), or changing the shape of something (transmutation) part of nature? Even if magic is a sort of natural force in a word (for example, in form of magical beasts), I think that messing with it is still breaking the natural order.
Science is considered just anything that can be explained and usable by anyone. Anyone can light up a smoke stick once the product is done. Make fire expontaneously jump from your hand (flaming hands) cannot be done without some special kind of training.

olentu
2010-07-18, 04:18 AM
Dunno. Making energy or objects (evokation and summoning) suddenly comming out of nowhere, or controlling creature's minds (illusion and charm), or changing the shape of something (transmutation) part of nature? Even if magic is a sort of natural force in a word (for example, in form of magical beasts), I think that messing with it is still breaking the natural order.
Science is considered just anything that can be explained and usable by anyone. Anyone can light up a smoke stick once the product is done. Make fire expontaneously jump from your hand (flaming hands) cannot be done without some special kind of training.

I don't know about that definition of science.

Math_Mage
2010-07-18, 04:21 AM
Dunno. Making energy or objects (evokation and summoning) suddenly comming out of nowhere, or controlling creature's minds (illusion and charm), or changing the shape of something (transmutation) part of nature? Even if magic is a sort of natural force in a word (for example, in form of magical beasts), I think that messing with it is still breaking the natural order.
Science is considered just anything that can be explained and usable by anyone. Anyone can light up a smoke stick once the product is done. Make fire expontaneously jump from your hand (flaming hands) cannot be done without some special kind of training.

If it were just a matter of training, it wouldn't be a problem. It takes training to use a computer properly, even if we all think of it instinctively by now. But what about when some people just can't do it? The Potterverse distinguishes Muggles as unable to perform magic, not merely untrained in the art. Frodo can use the Ring or the Light of Earandil, but he can't cast any spells himself. When magic is not a force in the universe, but an innate ability of some people that can be directed by conscious effort, then it is nearly as inexplicable as consciousness itself.

*sigh* this is hurting my head. Maybe I'll be more coherent in the morning. After the sun's up, I mean.

EDIT: A thought. Magic can occur on several levels. It can be a force in the universe, in which case it is in the domain of science. It can be as I described above, an inexplicable interface that people utilize without understanding of the foundational principles. It can be a trait of the end user, allowing them to access options unavailable to others, either deliberately or at random. It can be some combination of these things. Is there anything I've missed?

olentu
2010-07-18, 04:26 AM
If it were just a matter of training, it wouldn't be a problem. It takes training to use a computer properly, even if we all think of it instinctively by now. But what about when some people just can't do it? The Potterverse distinguishes Muggles as unable to perform magic, not merely untrained in the art. Frodo can use the Ring or the Light of Earandil, but he can't cast any spells himself. When magic is not a force in the universe, but an innate ability of some people that can be directed by conscious effort, then it is nearly as inexplicable as consciousness itself.

*sigh* this is hurting my head. Maybe I'll be more coherent in the morning. After the sun's up, I mean.

Clearly most people are missing some type of hereditary trait that the spell casters have.

jseah
2010-07-18, 04:28 AM
I still think that the original definition of magic is useful. The one about breaking the laws of nature.

A magical universe could easily be exactly the same as ours except for a natural law that contains a specific language used to rewrite the laws.
Imagine the world as a perfect simulation on a infinitely powerful computer. And say that specific patterns (let's say runes) drawn with a specific material could alter the simulation in any arbitrary way, including rewriting the rules.

Thus, magic becomes able to break the laws of the universe, including it's own laws. If the language is a complete one, you could easily define another language which is simpler and faster to use but limited to say, throwing fireballs.

Math_Mage
2010-07-18, 04:34 AM
Clearly most people are missing some type of hereditary trait that the spell casters have.

What is the trait? What grants them the ability that others do not have? And if it isn't hereditary? A person's traits are a consequence of heredity and upbringing, that's the natural explanation. What happens when some traits are determined in other ways? X-Men might not be the greatest example, as genes are involved and the child of mutant parents is likely to be a mutant, but the initial transformation does not appear to be predicted by heredity. Random or chaotic determination of traits could throw another wrench into the works--and if there is an ordering mechanism that operates outside the natural sphere, how could we distinguish it from chaos?

So, the question of what is 'magical' begins to subdivide. Where does magic come from? How does one interact with it? How does it behave? How can it be analyzed? Can it be analyzed?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-18, 04:58 AM
Fun fact: Without everyone agreeing to muse on the same magic, no one here has any sort of common ground to make much from this discussion.
DND's Magic is different from HP's magic, which is different from SW's magic, which is different from Discworld's Magic, which is different from Diablo's magic, which is different from Magic's Magic, which is different from Ichiban Ushiro No Daimaou's magic, which is different from Tsukihime's magic, which is different from Negima's magic, which is different from Dragon Ball's magic, which is different from Tormenta's magic, which is different from X-men's magic, which is different from Escaflowne's magic, which is different from Lodoss' magic, which is different from Zelda's magic, which is different from greek mythology's magic...

taltamir
2010-07-18, 05:10 AM
1. plenty of tech requires training to use or understand... imagine a gifted scientist and engineer from several hundred years ago who is an expert of steam technology trying to disassemble a nuclear reactor to reverse engineer it? (and their surprise when it explodes)

2. different creatures have different capabilities even within the same species. a "rare talent" type of magic would occur if it was similar to sickle cell anemia.
Sickle cell anemia is due to a point mutation in the gene that codes for hemoglobin, it causes hemoglobin to not fold properly, as a result said faulty hemoglobin form polymers, crippling their function. It inevitably leads to death, and is selected against severely.

however, people whose genotype is hetrozygous for sickle cell do not suffer from the sickle cell anemia, they produce both normal and malformed hemoglobin, it is "good enough" for them to live, not ideal, but it has the interesting side effect of making them immune to the ebola virus.

Thus you can have a situation where "ability to interface with magic" is balanced by both selection for and selection against. (which is why not everyone can perform magic)... this is of course if in your setting not everyone can perform magic... in some settings everyone CAN perform magic if they acquire the knowledge.

3. Magic is often used in stories for a variety of disparate and unrelated things... basically, anything that the author feels like should happen is just hand-waved as "magic" (aka, "a wizard did it"). This makes it very difficult to say magic is any one particular thing, the settings we have had so far (A through E) are all internally consistent with an actual explanation as to what magic does.
I think we need a setting F (for fail :P) for another very common form of magic... where "magic is a whole slew of different and unrelated things that differ from the real world that are hand-waved by the author". That would be DnD magic... sometimes its a force, sometimes its an energy, sometimes its advanced technology, sometimes its the literal bending of the laws of the universe... what it is is a collective of completely different things that are arbitrarily grouped together as "magic", and which are classified by results rather then by cause. AND they often contradict (as is bound to happen where you have many separate authors working together for one corporation).

Personally I prefer books which only had ONE author, since its far more feasible for those to be internally consistent and non conflicting. (although, a single author can still mess it up)

olentu
2010-07-18, 05:18 AM
What is the trait? What grants them the ability that others do not have? And if it isn't hereditary? A person's traits are a consequence of heredity and upbringing, that's the natural explanation. What happens when some traits are determined in other ways? X-Men might not be the greatest example, as genes are involved and the child of mutant parents is likely to be a mutant, but the initial transformation does not appear to be predicted by heredity. Random or chaotic determination of traits could throw another wrench into the works--and if there is an ordering mechanism that operates outside the natural sphere, how could we distinguish it from chaos?

So, the question of what is 'magical' begins to subdivide. Where does magic come from? How does one interact with it? How does it behave? How can it be analyzed? Can it be analyzed?

Well I suppose a question is do clones always have the same powers. If they do then it would seem that there is some element that carries over through the material used to clone. If not then perhaps like random effects in our reality there is a random effect in the manifestation. That would not be unreasonable. I could come up with more stuff but I do not see the use.



I suppose that all in all so long as there is some sort of predictableness in the magic then a rule can be made to predict to some degree what will happen. Though perhaps with a somewhat random element only probabilities will be able to be predicted.

taltamir
2010-07-18, 05:47 AM
x men grossly misrepresents biology, mutation, and hereditary conditions.
Heck, they even go so far as saying that there is ONE and ONLY one gene that makes someone a "mutant"... why every mutant has completely different powers (which somehow run in families) despite all having the exact same "mutant" gene is never explained, nor can it be explained.

Except perhaps as being a gene that lets them interface with magic / some sufficiently advanced alien technology.

olentu
2010-07-18, 05:55 AM
x men grossly misrepresents biology, mutation, and hereditary conditions.
Heck, they even go so far as saying that there is ONE and ONLY one gene that makes someone a "mutant"... why every mutant has completely different powers (which somehow run in families) despite all having the exact same "mutant" gene is never explained, not can it be explained.

Except perhaps as being a gene that lets them interface with magic / some sufficiently advanced alien technology.

Eh the mutant gene could be something like cat coats.

taltamir
2010-07-18, 06:01 AM
Eh the mutant gene could be something like cat coats.

please elaborate.

olentu
2010-07-18, 07:26 AM
please elaborate.

From what I gather there are genes that determine the coat color of calico cats. only one gene can set the color of a cell and the other one is turned off. This choosing is relatively random so that though cats may have the same genetic code the coat pattern will be different.

Now it is not an exact match since the cat genes are on the same spot on the X chromosome but one could propose a system where the mutant gene can not be active in a cell at the same time as a vestigial human gene in another place on the DNA. The interference means that during development one gets a random pattern of off and on say in a vital part of the brain that now also determines powers. To account for clones possibly having the same powers say once the development reaches a certain point the distribution produces some sort of feedback to imprint itself in each cell thus maintaining the ability across material used. Then a clone can have the same powers if this imprint is maintained and if it is disturbed there may be a change in the powers to a lesser or greater degree depending on the amount of disturbance.

Now then this is all being made up off of an article I read some where a time ago and what I vaguely remember of the x-men mutation mechanics so I may be completely off base with this but it certainly sounds semi-plausible to me.

woodenbandman
2010-07-18, 11:03 AM
the saying is "Any sufficiantly ANALYZED magic is indistinguishable from technology."

taltamir
2010-07-18, 12:13 PM
the saying is "Any sufficiantly ANALYZED magic is indistinguishable from technology."

that is merely ONE of the many variants of the saying; I have actually mentioned it here:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8940829&postcount=16
However, I know for a fact that its not the original saying. I had heard it years before that comic went online (2008-12-05), and at that time it was "advanced" rather then "analyzed"


From what I gather there are genes that determine the coat color of calico cats. only one gene can set the color of a cell and the other one is turned off. This choosing is relatively random so that though cats may have the same genetic code the coat pattern will be different.

Now it is not an exact match since the cat genes are on the same spot on the X chromosome but one could propose a system where the mutant gene can not be active in a cell at the same time as a vestigial human gene in another place on the DNA. The interference means that during development one gets a random pattern of off and on say in a vital part of the brain that now also determines powers. To account for clones possibly having the same powers say once the development reaches a certain point the distribution produces some sort of feedback to imprint itself in each cell thus maintaining the ability across material used. Then a clone can have the same powers if this imprint is maintained and if it is disturbed there may be a change in the powers to a lesser or greater degree depending on the amount of disturbance.

Now then this is all being made up off of an article I read some where a time ago and what I vaguely remember of the x-men mutation mechanics so I may be completely off base with this but it certainly sounds semi-plausible to me.

1. this does nothing to explain how in the world the same exact mutant gene will make one guy shoot lasers from his eyes, another get psychokinesis, another telepathy, another be born blue and with a tail, another have fur, another have claws, another control metal, etc etc etc.
The only possibility is "magic" or more likely, a case of "you fail biology/physics/chemistry forever".

2. Calico cats are due to X-deactivation, which happens in all mammals. You see, every mammal female has XX and every mammal male has XY, the Y is a stubby little thing with barely any DNA... to prevent females having too much (or males too little) of the proteins found on X chromosomes, the body "deactivates" all but 1 of the X chromosomes in each and every cell, which X chromosome gets deactivated is random and different for each cell... so on average a female mammel will have half the cells in its body (randomly distributed) have one of the X chromosomes off, and half of them have the other X chromosome off.
when a female cat has an X chromosome with the orange fur gene and another X chromosome with the black fur gene, it will end up expressing both.
In 3 colored calico cats there is another gene that determines whether color is produced at all (causing white spots) what gets involved.

Wikipedia actually has a good explanation about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoiseshell_cat#Genetics

ericgrau
2010-07-18, 12:25 PM
Isn't it typically the other way around?
This, and only because of the way sci-fi writers think. Do you really think they consider current technological trends and figure out what future tech would be most plausible? No, they consider what they want, and poof it's there. That is the same as magic.

Radar
2010-07-18, 01:20 PM
This, and only because of the way sci-fi writers think. Do you really think they consider current technological trends and figure out what future tech would be most plausible? No, they consider what they want, and poof it's there. That is the same as magic.
As one writer put it (more or less): there is equality between "The magic X" and "X from Outer Space". Yet, it is often averted to a degree. It all depends on, where does specific work lie on Moh's scale of Sci-Fi hardness. Actually fantasy works might be put there too IMO.

taltamir
2010-07-18, 01:46 PM
This, and only because of the way sci-fi writers think. Do you really think they consider current technological trends and figure out what future tech would be most plausible? No, they consider what they want, and poof it's there. That is the same as magic.

the classic sci-fi authors were actually scientists, who actually thought about those things... This has led to many of the things they predicted coming true...
it is only more recently that we have people dressed up magic as science without any understanding of actual science.

olentu
2010-07-18, 03:02 PM
that is merely ONE of the many variants of the saying; I have actually mentioned it here:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8940829&postcount=16
However, I know for a fact that its not the original saying. I had heard it years before that comic went online (2008-12-05), and at that time it was "advanced" rather then "analyzed"



1. this does nothing to explain how in the world the same exact mutant gene will make one guy shoot lasers from his eyes, another get psychokinesis, another telepathy, another be born blue and with a tail, another have fur, another have claws, another control metal, etc etc etc.
The only possibility is "magic" or more likely, a case of "you fail biology/physics/chemistry forever".

2. Calico cats are due to X-deactivation, which happens in all mammals. You see, every mammal female has XX and every mammal male has XY, the Y is a stubby little thing with barely any DNA... to prevent females having too much (or males too little) of the proteins found on X chromosomes, the body "deactivates" all but 1 of the X chromosomes in each and every cell, which X chromosome gets deactivated is random and different for each cell... so on average a female mammel will have half the cells in its body (randomly distributed) have one of the X chromosomes off, and half of them have the other X chromosome off.
when a female cat has an X chromosome with the orange fur gene and another X chromosome with the black fur gene, it will end up expressing both.
In 3 colored calico cats there is another gene that determines whether color is produced at all (causing white spots) what gets involved.

Wikipedia actually has a good explanation about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoiseshell_cat#Genetics

Did you really actually believe that I thought that there is in real life a gene that makes people fly and shoot lasers because that must be what you are saying since clearly something scientifically proven in our world is not the same in the imaginary one.

Now you see it is obviously outside the bounds of our reality since people clearly can not shoot lasers in real life. The pure fact that you needed to state that it must be something that is outside the bounds of our reality means that I do not think you know what I was talking about. Saying that this makes no sense due to not being the real world means that you are saying the the x-men universe has all the same physical rules as the real world and none that are different and this is very clearly not the case at all.

However I was giving a mechanic behind how one could have a random expression coming from a single gene that has only one version and not how the gene turns that expression into lasers. I was saying that since there is a real mechanism where one gene needs to be shut off to avoid problems then in this made up world there could reasonably be a mechanism where the fictitious "mutant gene" needs to be shut off in some imaginary cells due to interference with another leading to random expression from a single gene.


Really saying that an explanation does not make sense because it does not exist in the real world when we are talking about a fictitious universe that clearly does not act exactly the same as the real one seems a bit silly.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-18, 03:10 PM
Really saying that an explanation does not make sense because it does not exist in the real world when we are talking about a fictitious universe that clearly does not act exactly the same as the real one seems a bit silly.

This is critical to the thread: We cannot use the real world as the control group, because magic by definition does not exist in this world. We have to use some other world as a baseline(my first example used d&d's vancian magic), and tell from there whether magic can be "scienced" or not.

Magic usually is displayed as something that can be reproduced by those that can manipulate it, thus it is stable enough that the scientific method applies to it. Vancian was the first example, but almost all games where magic exists have magic be reliable enough that it can be analyzed, tapped and modified.

Mnemnosyne
2010-07-18, 03:34 PM
Generally speaking I tend to define it as 'anything that clearly and absolutely cannot be accomplished by the known natural laws of the real world.'

This doesn't mean it goes against the natural laws of the world it exists in, of course, but it provides a clear separation between magic and not magic. It is, basically, useful only as a reference term for us, the players. In-character it's probably more of a 'I can't define exactly what it is but I know it when I see it' thing. It would not be unreasonable for there to be arguments between various schools of thought on defining exactly what magic is, in-world.

Kallisti
2010-07-18, 03:47 PM
in which case calling it a "magic car" is akin to us calling our cars "gravity car", because gravity is a law of our universe.


Except that a "magic car" is powered by magic. It's more akin to calling them "chemistry cars," because they're powered by gasoline, and gasoline engines work because of gasoline's chemical properties. It's not nonsense, although it doesn't really explain how it works.

taltamir
2010-07-19, 10:13 AM
Except that a "magic car" is powered by magic. It's more akin to calling them "chemistry cars," because they're powered by gasoline, and gasoline engines work because of gasoline's chemical properties. It's not nonsense, although it doesn't really explain how it works.

Yes, I have listed both a case where it is a force (like gravity), and an energy (like electricity) as two distinct possibilities.

And calling a car "chemistry car" is not only redundant, its misleading. A car only works because we have physics, chemistry, etc... and because the forces, gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, etc all make our world "work" the way it does. take away any force and it wouldn't work.
It is valid to call a car "gasoline car" or "electric car" or "steam car" because this isn't a force, but the energy it utilizes to perform its function.


Did you really actually believe that I thought that there is in real life a gene that makes people fly and shoot lasers because that must be what you are saying since clearly something scientifically proven in our world is not the same in the imaginary one.
Never did I suggest that. However, in a hypothetical universe where you CAN have such a gene, it still fails because the exact SAME gene codes for different powers, yet somehow they remain consistent within families...
this is internal contradiction... the two possible internally consistent ways to do it are:
1. One gene codes for one powerset, so that multiple different genes code for the whole array of powers.
2. One gene codes for "random powers" (aka, the ability to tap magic), which means there is absolutely no relation between the powers of related individuals. (aka, siblings/parents/children do not have similar powers to each other)

That is internal consistency.


Really saying that an explanation does not make sense because it does not exist in the real world when we are talking about a fictitious universe that clearly does not act exactly the same as the real one seems a bit silly.

Really, never did I ever say that the explanation doesn't make sense because it does not exist in the real world. In fact, all throughout I am assuming hypothetical worlds where magic is real, where a gene can give you laser vision (where laser vision is even possible and not horrendously stupid) etc etc.
My gripes so far have all been about internal consistency. Magic A should be Magic A.


However I was giving a mechanic behind how one could have a random expression coming from a single gene that has only one version and not how the gene turns that expression into lasers. I was saying that since there is a real mechanism where one gene needs to be shut off to avoid problems then in this made up world there could reasonably be a mechanism where the fictitious "mutant gene" needs to be shut off in some imaginary cells due to interference with another leading to random expression from a single gene.

which doesn't solve their lack of internal consistency.
I had two points to say about it, one was a correction about how the mechanism in question works IRL, the other was that a mechanism that causes sporadic expression in cells would not be able to solve the lack of internal consistency in the setting.

Math_Mage
2010-07-19, 02:33 PM
Nitpick: Nothing about the strong or weak forces really has a first-order effect on the functioning of cars (or second-order, or third-order...). Take away gravity, and all you need is a device to keep the car on the ground. The electromagnetic forces that govern the chemistry behind the combustion engine are what you would ordinarily credit for a car, or electricity directly for an electric car. But none of that really affects the overall point.

olentu
2010-07-19, 02:41 PM
Yes, I have listed both a case where it is a force (like gravity), and an energy (like electricity) as two distinct possibilities.

And calling a car "chemistry car" is not only redundant, its misleading. A car only works because we have physics, chemistry, etc... and because the forces, gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, etc all make our world "work" the way it does. take away any force and it wouldn't work.
It is valid to call a car "gasoline car" or "electric car" or "steam car" because this isn't a force, but the energy it utilizes to perform its function.


Never did I suggest that. However, in a hypothetical universe where you CAN have such a gene, it still fails because the exact SAME gene codes for different powers, yet somehow they remain consistent within families...
this is internal contradiction... the two possible internally consistent ways to do it are:
1. One gene codes for one powerset, so that multiple different genes code for the whole array of powers.
2. One gene codes for "random powers" (aka, the ability to tap magic), which means there is absolutely no relation between the powers of related individuals. (aka, siblings/parents/children do not have similar powers to each other)

That is internal consistency.



Really, never did I ever say that the explanation doesn't make sense because it does not exist in the real world. In fact, all throughout I am assuming hypothetical worlds where magic is real, where a gene can give you laser vision (where laser vision is even possible and not horrendously stupid) etc etc.
My gripes so far have all been about internal consistency. Magic A should be Magic A.



which doesn't solve their lack of internal consistency.
I had two points to say about it, one was a correction about how the mechanism in question works IRL, the other was that a mechanism that causes sporadic expression in cells would not be able to solve the lack of internal consistency in the setting.

Wait powers within families are always thematically related well like I said I did not remember all of the mechanics it having been some time since I last perused them. However I do not see why you waited so long to say this. This is an actual legitimate concern since it is made from in the universe rather then outside. However the fact that it is one gene is set as fact and so unless that is changed in cannon it must be taken as true. Now then how many families are you drawing evidence from as with that we could get some idea which parent the children most follow. Also information on the amount of time the parents spend with the children both after but mainly before birth is important since it is quite possible that the proximity to the parents is influencing the expression of the gene thus leading to similar powers without needing more than one gene. If you could get some evidence about artificially created children grown without close contact with the parents that would be helpful in ruling out proximity as a cause.



Yes and I have been saying that if the "magic" follows patterns they can generally be "scienced". The explanation leads to random expression from a single gene and for a counter you would need to argue how it becomes inconsistent in the universe. You did do that above but before you did not so far as I can tell since I did not see you bring in any evidence from within the universe in question but rather evidence from the real world.


Well I suppose that it may not solve the internal consistency problem but not for the reasons in your previous post but rather for a reason that you did not bother to tell me until this post. I really can neither see the future nor read minds and so I can only go off what you give me. So I ask that you please put your supporting evidence in the same post as the one making the claim as otherwise I must assume that it does not exist.

taltamir
2010-07-19, 02:43 PM
without the strong or the weak force, atoms will fall apart to hydrogen only.
without electromagnetic force, the chemistry that allows combustion will not exist.
without gravity, a car will be lunched into the air, where it could not be navigator, nor could you accelerate or decelerate in a controlled manner, instead friction will reduce your speed until your car has been immobilized in the air (of course, in the long term, the air will fly away from the earth itself, so there will be no air, just uncontrolled flight through vacuum)...

so, take away any of the forces and a car will be impossible (heck, our very existance will be imposible)


Wait powers within families are always thematically related well like I said I did not remember all of the mechanics it having been some time since I last perused them. However I do not see why you waited so long to say this

I was sure I mentioned that before

Oslecamo
2010-07-19, 02:51 PM
(of course, in the long term, the air will fly away from the earth itself, so there will be no air, just uncontrolled flight through vacuum)...


Actualy, whitout gravity there wouldn't be Earth itself, as there would be nothing to force the floating pieces of rock to combine into giant balls.

There also wouldn't be stars because there's no gravity to force massive amounts of hydrogen togheter untill the pressure it's so high it starts a fusion reaction.

So yeah every force counts.

taltamir
2010-07-19, 03:01 PM
Actualy, whitout gravity there wouldn't be Earth itself, as there would be nothing to force the floating pieces of rock to combine into giant balls.

I was talking "if gravity suddenly failed" rather then "if gravity never existed"...

although, if gravity suddenly failed there is a good chance that large portions of the earth would fly off due to inertia.



There also wouldn't be stars because there's no gravity to force massive amounts of hydrogen togheter untill the pressure it's so high it starts a fusion reaction.

So yeah every force counts.

Yes, very true on both counts

Snake-Aes
2010-07-19, 03:05 PM
although, if gravity suddenly failed there is a good chance that large portions of the earth would fly off due to inertia.

More than large portions. Just about everything that isn't attached. The atmosphere would escape, anything that exerted any force on the ground. The oceans...

LurkerInPlayground
2010-07-19, 03:13 PM
I would say that "sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology" is not correct; epic-level magic is quite usually very distinguishable from technology.
Only if you're limiting your understanding of "technology" in very limited contemporary terms. Technology includes everything from cell phones, to crude pointy sticks and the concept of beef. Fictitious technologies range from FTL drive or magical incantations.

Incantations (or spells, if you prefer) is technology. It is a tool used by the character to manipulate their environment. The method, the materials and the body of knowledge or the training that is required to achieve an effect all form a part of that technology.

Technology is more of an abstract concept than it is the name of any physical object. It can include, for example, a system of government or a certain policy of law.


I think it is more accurate to say "Any sufficiently common magic is indistinguishable from technology."
What you are referring to here in this statement and it's following examples is industrialization. This is a nice way of saying that somebody made the effort to make technology cheaper and more accessible.

Longer swords was once a technological advancement in metallurgy. Just because the technology depends on a clunky system of feudally-controlled artisans doesn't make it any less of a technology.

Theoretically, there are many ways of lowering the cost of a given technology. This could be as simple as using a lot of trained slaves or making other technological advancements that makes the creation of this other tool come more cheaply (i.e. having agriculture good enough to support that many slaves).

This is what Rich Burlew's quote is referring to. Further refinements to a technology can make it cheaper and more commonplace. Eberron is basically this taken to its logical conclusion: the industrialization of magic.

Oslecamo
2010-07-19, 03:13 PM
More than large portions. Just about everything that isn't attached. The atmosphere would escape, anything that exerted any force on the ground. The oceans...

Considering that:
-Most of the Earth is molten rock and metal.
-The exterior crust where we are is composed of massive plates that "float" over the molten rock and metal.
-The core is solid only because of the massive pressure of everything above it...

Basically, there's very few stuff actually attacked in Earth. Once gravity stops doing it's job, cinetic energy from the earth's own spinning+inner pressure due to the heat inside Earth would probably make the planet explode into tiny pieces.

taltamir
2010-07-19, 03:15 PM
More than large portions. Just about everything that isn't attached. The atmosphere would escape, anything that exerted any force on the ground. The oceans...

I meant earth as in "ground" rather then "planet".
Yes, the atmosphere and oceans would go...
i think, deserts will go, active volcanoes will start spewing lava... any "free" rock... now, I am not sure but I think maybe chunks of more solid ground will tear apart and fly away thanks to their inertia being great enough to do so, and gravity no longer "opposing" said inertia.


Basically, there's very few stuff actually attacked in Earth. Once gravity stops doing it's job, cinetic energy from the earth's own spinning+inner pressure due to the heat inside Earth would probably make the planet explode into tiny pieces.
Yes, mostly likely.

hamishspence
2010-07-19, 03:16 PM
Hmm- maybe that might make for an alternate version of the Death Star? Not a "super-laser" but an antigravity weapon that neutralizes the gravitational field of a planet?

taltamir
2010-07-19, 03:17 PM
Hmm- maybe that might make for an alternate version of the Death Star? Not a "super-laser" but an antigravity weapon that neutralizes the gravitational field of a planet?

that was just EPIC!
great idea.

Math_Mage
2010-07-19, 03:36 PM
without the strong or the weak force, atoms will fall apart to hydrogen only.
without electromagnetic force, the chemistry that allows combustion will not exist.
without gravity, a car will be lunched into the air, where it could not be navigator, nor could you accelerate or decelerate in a controlled manner, instead friction will reduce your speed until your car has been immobilized in the air (of course, in the long term, the air will fly away from the earth itself, so there will be no air, just uncontrolled flight through vacuum)...

so, take away any of the forces and a car will be impossible (heck, our very existance will be imposible)

That's why I talked about orders of effect. Obviously, basically everything that happens in the universe depends on all four forces (though it's hypothesized that a universe without the weak force wouldn't look that different (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-11795.pdf)). The question is how much information about the functioning of a car you lose by masking the various forces. With a magic car, clearly the only force/energy/entity that you really need to explain how the car functions is whatever magic you're using. The same goes for the combustion processes of a gasoline-powered car, or the electromagnetic processes of an electric car. Pretty much anything that happens at this scale is dependent first and foremost upon electromagnetic interactions. The other forces are needed to explain the rest of existence, but not so much the car itself.

chiasaur11
2010-07-19, 03:45 PM
Aw.

I was hoping for more Ponder Stibbons quotes.

olentu
2010-07-19, 03:50 PM
I was sure I mentioned that before

Well then I suppose that I missed it in where ever you happened to mention it or you mentioned it in a way that was obscured by the times you have said that every mutant has completely different powers since completely different is not generally what I would use as synonymous to quite similar.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-07-20, 06:02 PM
Ah, my favorite comment, frequently found in textbooks that try to instill a sense of scientific wonder in students:
"If this natural law didn't exist, life would be impossible and the universe would implode!"

No. It just wouldn't be any universe you would recognize.

Math_Mage
2010-07-20, 06:12 PM
Ah, my favorite comment, frequently found in textbooks that try to instill a sense of scientific wonder in students:
"If this natural law didn't exist, life would be impossible and the universe would implode!"

No. It just wouldn't be any universe you would recognize.

I doubt anybody here disagrees with you. Now, back to the thread.

Oslecamo
2010-07-20, 06:16 PM
Ah, my favorite comment, frequently found in textbooks that try to instill a sense of scientific wonder in students:
"If this natural law didn't exist, life would be impossible and the universe would implode!"

No. It just wouldn't be any universe you would recognize.

Tecnically speaking the afirmation it's still correct, because whatever existed in that other universe wouldn't qualify as life by our standards.

Math_Mage
2010-07-20, 06:22 PM
Tecnically speaking the afirmation it's still correct, because whatever existed in that other universe wouldn't qualify as life by our standards.

The standards for life are sufficiently nonspecific that they can apply to other universes, to some extent.