PDA

View Full Version : Debate: Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology



Keinnicht
2011-01-16, 03:28 PM
Yesterday I was DMing a new campaign, and the players needed a boat. They ended up stealing one, and discovered that none of them had any idea how to use a boat (No ranks in any relevant skills.) Once they made a few random skill checks to figure out the sails, they started trying to steer. I decided not to roll, because a wheel is a pretty easy steering mechanism.

This prompted a bit of debate. One of the guys had thought we were in a Dark Ages level of technology, meaning they would've had to turn with oars. I responded by saying I liked a roughly Victorian level of technology, and that I find it unlikely that you would have a Dark Ages level of tech in a world where there are high-level spellcasters. And also by pointing out I was making it easier for them to turn around and he should probably stop complaining.

Does this seem reasonable to you guys? I'm not going for an Eberron sort of thing, where all the technology is basically the same as modern stuff, but done with magic instead of science. I think the existence of magic would slow scientific progress, but that magic would cover up most of the difference.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-16, 03:36 PM
Ah, most D&D settings are an Anachronism Stew (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnachronismStew) anyway.

Dr Bwaa
2011-01-16, 03:41 PM
Not that this is helpful, but here's a quote that's almost exactly your title:
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205)

On topic: yes, I think that's perfectly reasonable, as KG mentioned.

Foryn Gilnith
2011-01-16, 03:54 PM
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205)
That's because the "sufficiently analyzed" part is science. It's indistinguishable because it's exactly the same. Science isn't an aesthetic with metal and electricity and chemicals, as parts of pop culture (and Girl Genius, if I'd have to hazard a guess) seems to believe. It's a method; a technique. Would the existence of magic slow the development and refinement of this technique? Possibly yes, possibly no; it depends on how your world's metaphysics work.

The question in the title is somewhat different, as (to the best of my understanding) "technology" is more of an aesthetic, since (unlike science) it doesn't have a useful dictionary definition. This is probably more of a question about speculative fiction writers, though; will a Western human writing about "advanced" magic necessarily adopt the trappings of technology?

Yora
2011-01-16, 03:59 PM
It wouldn't apply to sorcerers and probably to clerics, but in D&D, wizards are clearly scientists researching the natural laws of magic.

Bang!
2011-01-16, 04:00 PM
It's reasonable. Especially in an Eberron campaign.

It's kind of a change from traditional assumptions of D&D, which could throw some players for a loop if it's not explicitly brought up in describing a campaign setting. Eberron's all about the Artificer/jet train/scent-of-steampunk stuff anyway, so the magic-as-technology thing is more than justified; it's encouraged.

Also, is explaining people's titles to them a meme now? I'd brush it off as misunderstanding, but I've seen it fairly often recently and it's the same sort of unfunny gimmick that seems to be popular on the internet these days.

Foryn Gilnith
2011-01-16, 04:30 PM
Also, is explaining people's titles to them a meme now? ...I've seen it fairly often recently

Seems like an odd thing to be memetically transferred. Maybe there just happens to be a large amount of unclearly defined discussions and people inordinately concerned with semantics.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-16, 04:30 PM
It wouldn't apply to sorcerers and probably to clerics, but in D&D, wizards are clearly scientists researching the natural laws of magic.
But they are using those natural laws all the same. :smallamused:

Zaydos
2011-01-16, 04:37 PM
But they are using those natural laws all the same. :smallamused:

Using yes, but studying and analyzing no. If you look at it wizards are the most likely to create new spells and magic items which become widespread. Sorcerers might occasionally spontaneously learn a new spell no one ever knew before but they (normally) can't teach it to anyone (and even the ones who can only can teach it to wizards). It's unique. A fluke. Wizards on the other hand have duplicate-able results that can be repeated and used by other wizards.

KillianHawkeye
2011-01-16, 05:06 PM
I'm pretty sure the standard large-scale boat in D&D has a rudder attached to a steering wheel, so unless you're specifically playing in the time of viking longboats you should be fine.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-16, 05:53 PM
Using yes, but studying and analyzing no. If you look at it wizards are the most likely to create new spells and magic items which become widespread. Sorcerers might occasionally spontaneously learn a new spell no one ever knew before but they (normally) can't teach it to anyone (and even the ones who can only can teach it to wizards). It's unique. A fluke. Wizards on the other hand have duplicate-able results that can be repeated and used by other wizards.
Which really fits their archetype as the gifted verses the studious, the guy who gets A's without trying, verses the determined struggler. A wizard can only cast one spell in each slot, but their knowledge of the theory of magic means they can see the connections between different spells, actually understanding more or less fully what they are doing. Yes, I do see Wizards as scientists of magic. How much a Cleric understands about the spells they cast depends really on the cleric and their god.

tyckspoon
2011-01-16, 06:39 PM
Are any of your players wearing full plate? Carrying a rapier? Maybe purchased a water clock to decorate their townhouse in the city? Then they should already be aware they're not in a Dark Ages situation; those are Renaissance things.

Eldariel
2011-01-16, 06:46 PM
Depends on magic. And technology. Seriously, magic can be given any parameters and depending on the parameters, the answer varies. If we assume "magic that can do anything without limitations" and "technology is any kind of development not based on magic", no; technology always needs some implement or something to act through. Magic specifically doesn't need to follow any rules and can just be. No matter how advanced technology, something must be done for things to be doable.

You don't use technology to be able to travel through time without something enabling that travelling; whether it's genetic mutation, organic brain implant or whatever is irrelevant, there is something enabling it. If you time travel with magic, you just do it; it doesn't require anything. Nothing has to change with regards to you for you to be able to do it; you just tap into whatever the magic is and then it just happens.


But seriously, such debate can't exist without definitions. Can this magic be a part of technology? Are we restricted to physics with technology? Does magic have any kinds of restrictions? We don't even have a framework for discussion here.

That said, as the topic isn't about the topic, I digress.

gbprime
2011-01-16, 07:37 PM
Maybe purchased a water clock to decorate their townhouse in the city? Then they should already be aware they're not in a Dark Ages situation; those are Renaissance things.

Actually, the water clock has been around since ancient times. So have a surprising amount of other "tech" gear.

Antikythera mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism) for example. Best guess is that it tracked the motion of the sun, moon, and some of the planets.

Dead_Jester
2011-01-16, 07:42 PM
I have to agree with Eldariel, because if magic and technology both exist, and are maintained and regulated by the same constant set of physical and energetic laws, than the analysis of magic becomes a science, and the use of magic is nothing but the application of science.

In this case, magic, no matter the kind, becomes science, and could then be harnessed to achieve an objective, therefore making it into a piece of technology.

Keinnicht
2011-01-16, 07:55 PM
It wouldn't apply to sorcerers and probably to clerics, but in D&D, wizards are clearly scientists researching the natural laws of magic.

Yeah, but I think that researching the natural laws of magic might take away from other scientific pursuits.

There's not much reason to learn how to cure cancer when you can cast remove disease.

Fiery Diamond
2011-01-16, 08:04 PM
*headsmack*

I'm pretty sure that it's pretty obvious that the statement "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology" means "In a fictional setting, we (the creator(s) of the fictional world) can have things which exist in our world as the result of technological advancement, such as (depending on how advanced you want to get) boats which move without oars, cars, airplanes, elevators, etc. exist in the fictional setting as the result of application of magic (whatever magic happens to be within that setting)."

Ytaker
2011-01-16, 08:11 PM
Technology is based on the principle that things in the world follow consistent rules and that by following these rules you can effect changes.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RitualMagic


One of the oldest conceptions of magic is Ritual Magic, a method of casting spells based on the performance of specific words, gestures, actions and offerings at specific places and times. Magic isn't a question of talent, spiritual enlightenment, or a power you're born with. It's something that anyone can learn, even (perhaps dangerously) a Muggle. This puts Ritual Magic closer to technology than other forms of Functional Magic, it works because of knowledge that has been collected about the natural world and used in a certain way; witches and wizards are essentially "engineers" of magic.

In this case, yes, magic is similar to technology. In dungeons and dragons this is normally true.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WildMagic


The underlying magical forces at work in the universe, or at least in this section of it, are, quite literally, alive...And more often than not, they are completely amoral. At best they are whimsical, in a way that would normally be completely harmless. They just want to play.

In this case, no. You can't get consistent results out of it, and interpersonal skills where you negotiate with the wild magic are very important. You might be able to gather information about the forces with science, but the effects are wildly inconsistent and irrational.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-16, 08:14 PM
My own version of the clause goes "Sufficiently analyzed, supernatural is just an extension of the natural". If people can attain knowledge of the weird and get away with it, eventually the weird seizes to be weird.

I also don't think people with such understanding of magic will call it all just magic - they have their own lingo for specific supernatural causes and effects, and quite likely consider vague umbrella terms to be horribly unexact.

The weird thing here is that the OP's example doesn't actually deal with magic at all - it's about a simple non-magical mechanism. Generally, such details of relative tech-level are GM judgement calls - and if it existed in real life, you don't have to bring magic within ten feet of the subject. You just have to remember to be consistent with such solutiosn.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-17, 12:41 AM
In this case, no. You can't get consistent results out of it, and interpersonal skills where you negotiate with the wild magic are very important. You might be able to gather information about the forces with science, but the effects are wildly inconsistent and irrational.
Oh so scientists can't study living things now?
There is a word for that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology)
The study of things with minds is one of our crudest sciences, but we are still learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology).

Zaydos
2011-01-17, 12:45 AM
Now I want to play a manabiologist. I always did like the wizard-druid character mixing biology and MAGIC, now though biology ABOUT MAGIC! Although I might drop the druid for that.

Coidzor
2011-01-17, 01:59 AM
I'm pretty sure the standard large-scale boat in D&D has a rudder attached to a steering wheel, so unless you're specifically playing in the time of viking longboats you should be fine.

Don't sails figure into steering to a certain degree as well anyway? Unless we're talking fine maneuvers which, well, there's a reason that vans and trucks are referred to as navigating like boats on wheels.


Now I want to play a manabiologist. I always did like the wizard-druid character mixing biology and MAGIC, now though biology ABOUT MAGIC! Although I might drop the druid for that.

What, you mean like the wizards who, as part of their doctoral theses, have to create new forms of life?

Zaydos
2011-01-17, 02:04 AM
What, you mean like the wizards who, as part of their doctoral theses, have to create new forms of life?

Well... that was my DMPC... in the campaign epilogue it was revealed he created several new lifeforms. One new species survived.

But no I will be a wizard who clones MAGIC itself :smallbiggrin:

Coidzor
2011-01-17, 02:12 AM
Ooo, man-made shadow weave, sounds fun. :smallbiggrin:

Ytaker
2011-01-17, 06:20 AM
Oh so scientists can't study living things now?
There is a word for that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology)
The study of things with minds is one of our crudest sciences, but we are still learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology).

Me
You might be able to gather information about the forces with science, but the effects are wildly inconsistent and irrational.

As I said, much less consistent than normal biology. You can study it but you won't get technology out of it. It's not a living thing, it's a ball of magical consiousness, or one that inhabits the land. It will resist any attempts by you to use it. Science can often study it, but it can't control it.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-17, 06:49 AM
Me

As I said, much less consistent than normal biology. You can study it but you won't get technology out of it. It's not a living thing, it's a ball of magical consiousness, or one that inhabits the land. It will resist any attempts by you to use it. Science can often study it, but it can't control it.
Same thing with the science of the mind, it doesn't mean we can't learn.

Ytaker
2011-01-17, 07:55 AM
Same thing with the science of the mind, it doesn't mean we can't learn.

Yes, which I said you could. You just can't get consistent results out of it, like with the mind, and so it's not technology. Some magic is very unpredictable. Chaotic. Insane.

Also, some magic affects people who study it. If you try to understand it you will go insane, which impedes rational study.

warmachine
2011-01-17, 08:26 AM
Assuming this is D&D magic, it can be reliably reproduced by others and affects the world in some useful way, so it is a form of technology. However, it would be incorrect to say it's indistinguishable from what we commonly understand as technology. There are devices that might be thought of as technological that don't quite behave according to common definitions.

Technology can be operated and applied by those who can't actually reproduce it themselves. The technology will still function by those who don't know how to use it properly, it will merely be misapplied (even dangerously). A car can be driven, badly, by someone who knows about the ignition switch, steering wheel, pedals and gear stick, even though he has no idea how an internal combustion engine works or is constructed. D&D has plenty of magical devices that don't require any skill to use but some devices, particularly wands, won't function at all, even badly, without skill.

Eldan
2011-01-17, 08:33 AM
Yes, which I said you could. You just can't get consistent results out of it, like with the mind, and so it's not technology. Some magic is very unpredictable. Chaotic. Insane.

Also, some magic affects people who study it. If you try to understand it you will go insane, which impedes rational study.

However, the behaviour of an insane creature, though apparently random, is in the end still governed by certain forces. There are inputs, which are somehow computed, and there is an output.
Theoretically, if we knew źnough about physics, had a computer strong enough, and knew all the particles involved in a brain, you could predict that brain.
Why should this not work on a living magical force? Find out how it gets its inputs, how it computes them, and predict what its outputs are. There. Science.

Coidzor
2011-01-17, 08:40 AM
It will resist any attempts by you to use it.

In that case, magic is more than useless, it's also malignant. And really outside of the scope of the topic anyway.

You cannot advance what you cannot use or meaningfully interact with.


Science can often study it, but it can't control it.

Science isn't explicitly for controlling things. Learning things about other things can lead to people figuring out ways to apply that knowledge to control them though.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-17, 09:21 AM
Just something I forgot to comment on: the whole idea of "magic slowing down science" is faulty. It's based on a dichtomy that isn't there. Most often, magic would not slow science, but instead take it to a vastly different direction. After all, science is all about observable effects, and in most settings where magic exists it is observable. It's just that if the observable effects differ enough from or world (or some other setting), the results are obviously going to be different.

Fouredged Sword
2011-01-17, 12:38 PM
The idea of science requireing consistancy is flawed. People apply science in situations that are inherently inconsistant and we have meathods of measureing and accounting for inconsistancy. People would develope theories and test them for any given cause and effect relationship, it's part of what makes us such a hardy race, we atempt to predict what comes next. We aren't always right, but given time and trial and error we get better. The addition of magic wouldn't change that.

Ytaker
2011-01-17, 01:12 PM
However, the behaviour of an insane creature, though apparently random, is in the end still governed by certain forces. There are inputs, which are somehow computed, and there is an output.
Theoretically, if we knew źnough about physics, had a computer strong enough, and knew all the particles involved in a brain, you could predict that brain.
Why should this not work on a living magical force? Find out how it gets its inputs, how it computes them, and predict what its outputs are. There. Science.

If you try to do that on this magical thing the likely result will be your inputs being inconsistent and you going insane which will severely impede science. That means you can't make a technological thing work.

Yes, that's science. Technology, which was the title of the thread, is not science. Technology involves things we can use reliably.


In that case, magic is more than useless, it's also malignant. And really outside of the scope of the topic anyway.

You cannot advance what you cannot use or meaningfully interact with.

A phenonenon being malignant doesn't mean it's outside the scope of technology.

You can meaningfully interact. Think of Fey, from the white wolf mythology say. You can't use them but if you offer them your firstborn child you can get valuable goods because they benefit. If you offer the wild magic something it may go away.

Coidzor
2011-01-17, 02:01 PM
Think of Fey, from the white wolf mythology say. You can't use them but if you offer them your firstborn child you can get valuable goods because they benefit.

Which is actually still a use and apparently something that can be relied upon a certain percentage of the time, so it doesn't really fit what you were arguing in the first place.


If you offer the wild magic something it may go away.
And the use here is what? Keeping the wild magic from offing you by making it go away?

Eldan
2011-01-17, 02:04 PM
Pretty much, yeah. Wild Magic in some settings can basically be seen as a natural disaster. You ward it off with sacrifices and Talismans and fight it with priest, like you "ward off" fire with stone walls, protected lamps and fight it with firemen.

Jayabalard
2011-01-17, 02:21 PM
I find it unlikely that you would have a Dark Ages level of tech in a world where there are high-level spellcasters.
(vs)
I think the existence of magic would slow scientific progress, but that magic would cover up most of the difference.
these seem contradictory...

The former is a rather uncommon view I think... generally the argument goes something along the lines of "well, they use magic, and magic does it better, so noone bothered looking for a sciency solution to a problem that is already solved" ... so you'll find dark ages technology alongside magic, even though society as a whole won't reflect that.

So turning a boat is might be turned with either an oar, or some sort of magic, but not advanced tech.

Science is more than just being observable; in most settings, it's the repeatable bit that makes magic sit opposite science.



Just something I forgot to comment on: the whole idea of "magic slowing down science" is faulty. It's based on a dichtomy that isn't there. Most often, magic would not slow science, but instead take it to a vastly different direction. After all, science is all about observable effects, and in most settings where magic exists it is observable. It's just that if the observable effects differ enough from or world (or some other setting), the results are obviously going to be different.That's not the Dichotomy that they're talking about. When people talk about magic slowing down science, what they generally mean is "magic slows down engineering" ... that is, technology, the things that are produced as a result of scientific advances.

Quite a bit of science and engineering is driven by the desire to "solve problem X" or "solve problem X in a better way" ... and if there's already a better magic solution, then things that were invented in the real world aren't going to happen, because even if someone figures it out, there's no market for it.

So in the D&D world, there's no reason for someone to want to build a better wood burning stove; get a heating or cooking spell instead, and you've solved the problem in a better way.

Eldan
2011-01-17, 02:22 PM
I think that someone once propsed that if Sorcerers were common enough, there was actually little reason for society to progress past the stone age technologically. Everything else can be summoned or created with magic.

Ytaker
2011-01-17, 02:31 PM
Which is actually still a use and apparently something that can be relied upon a certain percentage of the time, so it doesn't really fit what you were arguing in the first place.

Ah no, that's actually one of the main themes of fey. They don't quite understand what you want and if you associate with them bad things tend to happen. Some minor fey may follow you around using their magic to twist the world to make you richer, and utterly screw up your (richer) life. Or something else might happen. The fey thrive on chaos, and being unpredictable.

Having the wild magic like you is a curse. Stare into the abyss and it may stare back. Which isn't conductive to science.


And the use here is what? Keeping the wild magic from offing you by making it go away?

Yeah, pretty much.

Coidzor
2011-01-17, 02:37 PM
Pretty much, yeah. Wild Magic in some settings can basically be seen as a natural disaster. You ward it off with sacrifices and Talismans and fight it with priest, like you "ward off" fire with stone walls, protected lamps and fight it with firemen.

And this is advanced how?

How is this even topical?

Sotharsyl
2011-01-17, 03:18 PM
This is just a meta-theory of mine but I've always imagined that sorcerers were the original arcane casters,they would cast spells like a poet writes a well..,a poem a sorcerer wanted to kill someone they could have thought "Fire kills things at the very least injures them getting burned right now when they're away from me would be really cool now" and boom the fireball spell is invented.

If several people make the easy enough mental step from I need my enemies dead to fire,legends of magicians who wield flame start to circulate. Then everybody who has sorcerer potential and is willing to pay homage to the greats with their spells has a fireball and over time you have a small but stable sorcerer spell list.

Eventually you have a sufficient number of sorcerers that they can be tracked down so the most curious and intelligent sages begin to observe them and they notice things,all the fire spells use the same hand movements the hand movements from the fire arrow spell which we don't understand also show up in the magic missile spell.I wonder what would happen if we convince the sorcerer to do the missile part with the water part or if we did it ourselves?

And so wizards enter the circle they create new spells which the sorcerers use,which in turn lets the sorcerers build from that to a new spell,which is the analyzed by the wizards etc...

Also about the technology issue,if the peasants know that by being smart enough you can become powerful maybe some of them will try to train their minds in place of their bodies and in the case of being rejected as a apprentice they can go forget plowing my dad's fields the old way I can build a better plow with what I've learned till,pre-aprentice level alchemy, now and sell it.

jseah
2011-01-17, 03:24 PM
Ytaker, Codizor:
The misunderstanding results from a difference in premises.

Speaking from the other side, the assumption here is that the world is inherently predictable.
And when I use "the world", it means everything, including magic and everything that it interacts with.
- And everything that interacts with that and so on, ad infinitum until you have including everything that even affects anything at all.

The misunderstanding comes because very simply, there is a limit to human imagination. Like I've said in other threads (perhaps elsewhere), the most you have to be able to predict is your GM. XD

It's like the same way astronomy goes. You can't build stars, you can't do experiments like making a star a slightly different way or anything like that. Science still happens. Eventually, technology as well. We still have solar panels.
Even truly random events can be studied. See radioactivity and it's uses.

Your points that magic is an intelligent thing that follows it's own goals is exactly the same as a First Contact situation. Humans have made contact with an intelligent lifeform that we do not understand.

They appear strange, but there are still patterns. They act in certain ways, towards ends that are plainly not human. But that's expected, because they are essentially an alien race.
Perhaps even our concept of goals cannot be applied. But again, that is expected.

While it isn't always feasible to study (like trying build a star-sized black hole) intelligent magic, but apply enough ingenuity and you might be able to. Theoretically at least.

Coidzor
2011-01-17, 03:31 PM
Speaking from the other side, the assumption here is that the world is inherently predictable.
And when I use "the world", it means everything, including magic and everything that it interacts with.
- And everything that interacts with that and so on, ad infinitum until you have including everything that even affects anything at all.

That still doesn't answer the question of how this became the topic of the thread or how it's actually still under the original topic. Because if it's the latter, I'm really not grokking how it became the case.

And most of these things seem to also preclude the development of societies, let alone anything beyond sticks and stones. Or, heck, the creation of humanoids.

Ytaker
2011-01-17, 04:46 PM
No, I'm saying while you can use science to study wild magic, it is next to impossible to harness it for technological purposes. Also on a related note, wild magic may be predictable, but in trying to predict it you go insane and die. If you tried to use it for technology the results would not be predictable.

Coidzor
2011-01-17, 04:47 PM
Also on a related note, wild magic may be predictable, but in trying to predict it you go insane and die.

Ah, yes, I am familiar with this style of DMing. Not very popular from what I know of it.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-17, 04:53 PM
No, I'm saying while you can use science to study wild magic, it is next to impossible to harness it for technological purposes. Also on a related note, wild magic may be predictable, but in trying to predict it you go insane and die. If you tried to use it for technology the results would not be predictable.
Um, any use of wild magic is using it for technology.
After all, the weather is chaotic, literally, yet we depend on it for much of our agriculture, which is a technology.

Ytaker
2011-01-17, 05:00 PM
Um, any use of wild magic is using it for technology.
After all, the weather is chaotic, literally, yet we depend on it for much of our agriculture, which is a technology.

The effects of the weather are utterly predictable (rain=wet ground). And they don't have a corruption cost, or involve insane beings. Unlike wild magic.

Also, the weather isn't conscious.


Ah, yes, I am familiar with this style of DMing. Not very popular from what I know of it.

Lots of games and books have some wild magic. It's not really a style of DMing it's just a type of magic.

Jayabalard
2011-01-17, 05:02 PM
Um, any use of wild magic is using it for technology.
After all, the weather is chaotic, literally, yet we depend on it for much of our agriculture, which is a technology.Depend is not the same thing as use.

Nor is the weather chaotic; it's just not completely understood.

Wild magic on the other hand, is chaotic.

jseah
2011-01-17, 05:08 PM
I'm not too familiar with them, but CoC does have that kind of magic.

In that case, the basic assumption doesn't apply because apparently logic doesn't work in CoC and can in fact be a disadvantage. (seriously, a close look at the idea that reading can make people go crazy is ridiculous)

Would be pretty interesting to have that. Unpredictable weather. It rains but nothing gets wet. ^^


What essentially happens in those cases is that only the insane use magic. (and those who use magic go insane, so the rule works both ways)
And then you shoot everyone who does coz they're a threat to society.

Truly untestable and incomprehensible magic cannot be used in any way at all. Not in any normal sense of the word 'use'.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-17, 05:13 PM
Depend is not the same thing as use.
Ok, we USE weather to grow our crops. How in the nine rings of Neo Portugal is depend on not using?


Nor is the weather chaotic; it's just not completely understood.

Wild magic on the other hand, is chaotic.
Weather is chaotic. Small changes in the initial results make large changes in the end result. Of course, if Wild Magic is also intelligent, that adds another layer of difficulty. But it also means there is someone we can potentially communicate with. If nothing else, we can find ways to shield from it's effects, as we build levies for the storm, prows on our buildings to divert avalanches.

Foryn Gilnith
2011-01-17, 07:14 PM
What essentially happens in those cases is that only the insane use magic. (and those who use magic go insane, so the rule works both ways)

Elaborating more on this point, if magic causes its users to actively cultivate an anti-empirical or illogical mindset, how would that affect science and technology in a world where magic advances?

Dead_Jester
2011-01-17, 08:03 PM
Wild magic on the other hand, is chaotic.

Wild Magic is only chaotic as long as the rules regulating it (for if it exists, it must, at it's core, follow some principles regulating said existence) remain unknown. It might be random, it might be incredibly hard to predict, but if it exists in a phenomenon that can be defined as a grouping of different effects and values (which everything, when you get down to it, can be), than it can be predicted.

If it is intelligent,than it most definitely isn't chaotic. It might be alien to us, but it's actions and it's thoughts (if it has a defined intellect, centralized or not) can probably be represented by binary probability like everything else in the universe that is regulated by some for of laws or processes.

As soon as you can predict it, than it isn't chaotic anymore, it simply is random, and as such, is theoretically testable. However, said tests may remain impossible or impractical. However, as soon as it begins to be even somewhat predictable, than technology can be based around it, especially if some factors have an effect on magic, which could theoretically be harnessed to make said magic more predictable if not more controllable.

And even if wild magic was completely and utterly chaotic (it follows no set rule except that it follows no set rule, which in itself is contradictory), the effects in a given environmental situation could eventually probably be predicted, and uses could be found (if 50% of the time you use magic, it creates a dangerous effect, than it is usable as a weapon, although a very unpredictable one that will most likely also kill it's user).

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-17, 11:50 PM
That's not the Dichotomy that they're talking about. When people talk about magic slowing down science, what they generally mean is "magic slows down engineering" ... that is, technology, the things that are produced as a result of scientific advances.

Quite a bit of science and engineering is driven by the desire to "solve problem X" or "solve problem X in a better way" ... and if there's already a better magic solution, then things that were invented in the real world aren't going to happen, because even if someone figures it out, there's no market for it.

So in the D&D world, there's no reason for someone to want to build a better wood burning stove; get a heating or cooking spell instead, and you've solved the problem in a better way.

Still a flase dichtomy because spells are technology. It's just different technology, because it's based on different natural resources being available.

You might as well say "iron slows down engineering", because abundant iron makes people less likely to advance metallurgy of other metals in regards to several different constructions.

Saying a society dependent on magic is "stone age, outside magic" would be like saying our society is "bronze age, outside iron." I don't think I need to deconstruct that sentence very far for you to see its flaws.

Calling a society like this...


I think that someone once propsed that if Sorcerers were common enough, there was actually little reason for society to progress past the stone age technologically. Everything else can be summoned or created with magic.

... technologically stone age is a horrible misnomer. It'd make worlds more sense to say they're technologically Magic age.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 03:15 AM
Magic is often supposed to be easier to do than science. That's why that particular anti science thread exists. To heal someone from cancer in our world takes decades of complicated science. With magic you just tell the world or thor or whatever to heal the person and they are healed. It's less close to technology than negotiation.

So, while people's understanding of technology may be poor they can talk to beings who can make that stuff happen at will, and so don't need technology. The magic isn't technology so much as negotiations with powerful beings.

Of course, magic may later fuse with technology and become more scientific.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-18, 03:38 AM
With the way Magic works in D&D, it IS a science. Yes, for it to work would require laws of physics that are very different from our own. But laws none the less. Even divine magic like you describe. Someone who is w devout and has x strength of character and is y experienced in solving difficulties gets z level spells.

Eldan
2011-01-18, 03:49 AM
... technologically stone age is a horrible misnomer. It'd make worlds more sense to say they're technologically Magic age.

Ah, you know what I mean. I mean, I am one of those arguing for magic being a technology. My terminology was just bad.

Yes, their technology would be awesome. However, if magic was common and advanced enough, there would be little use for non-magical tools. That's what I meant. Why use "stone tied to stick" when you can use "fire flying through the air"?

ffone
2011-01-18, 03:53 AM
Using yes, but studying and analyzing no. If you look at it wizards are the most likely to create new spells and magic items which become widespread. Sorcerers might occasionally spontaneously learn a new spell no one ever knew before but they (normally) can't teach it to anyone (and even the ones who can only can teach it to wizards). It's unique. A fluke. Wizards on the other hand have duplicate-able results that can be repeated and used by other wizards.

No reason that sorcerers can't teach other sorcerers spells that I know of. It just requires the learner level up to use it. =P

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-18, 04:30 AM
Magic is often supposed to be easier to do than science. That's why that particular anti science thread exists. To heal someone from cancer in our world takes decades of complicated science. With magic you just tell the world or thor or whatever to heal the person and they are healed. It's less close to technology than negotiation.

So, while people's understanding of technology may be poor they can talk to beings who can make that stuff happen at will, and so don't need technology. The magic isn't technology so much as negotiations with powerful beings.

Of course, magic may later fuse with technology and become more scientific.

... that's like saying growing rice in a wet environment is not technology, because it's "easier" than growing wheat in a desert. Magic is a resource of nature, just like water or iron; using magic is technology. It doesn't matter if it bears no resemblance to technology of non-magical locale.


Ah, you know what I mean. I mean, I am one of those arguing for magic being a technology. My terminology was just bad.


I know what you mean, I quoted you because you provided such a good example of the faulty line of thinking, regardless of whether you share it. :smallwink:

J.Gellert
2011-01-18, 04:53 AM
Yes, their technology would be awesome. However, if magic was common and advanced enough, there would be little use for non-magical tools. That's what I meant. Why use "stone tied to stick" when you can use "fire flying through the air"?

Exactly! It can go either way, depending on this...

Is it easy to be a wizard? Are wizard schools "open to all"? Do they take apprentices? If so, no one would ever invent TNT, because he can cast blasty magic; and no one would ever invent transportation, because he can enchant his horse to go without food or water; and so on.

In this case, magic is the science of the setting. This should be D&D, probably, considering how common casters are (two of them in every adventuring party).

Is it difficult to be a wizard? Are wizards an elite group or there are too few of them? Then there is reason to invent these things; besides, if lords and kings are not wizards themselves, they will feel threatened by magic, and seek to overpower it with SCIENCE!, inventing guns and so on.

SCIENCE! may or may not be controlled/monitored by powerful mages. This would be low-fantasy... But I can't think of any examples other than the (evil!) industry (of evil!) of Isengard (that is evil!) and the bombards (only mentioned?) in Artesia. Writers like medieval stasis.

It's simple, really and it can go either way. So why argue about it?
Oh, right, Internet... :smalltongue:

Eldan
2011-01-18, 04:59 AM
I think this is mainly a problem of 3rd Edition, though. Lately, I've been reading through a series of "Fantasy CLassics" the local bookshop had in store. Lankhmar, Conan, Elric...

They all share that wizard are more or less rare, and magic is certainly dangerous. Magicians tend to get mad or eaten by demons. And this is very much the fiction early D&D was inspired by. (Seriously. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser go on every cliché D&D-quest ever over the course of the series. Dungeon-raiding, monster-slaying, princess-saving, temple-robbing.)

So, D&D magic is supposed to be rare in the fluff, the problem is, the rules don't support that.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-18, 05:20 AM
Yeah. The problem becomes even more exaggerated when the players insist on reading the rules like Devil reads the Bibble and it starts breaking their willing suspension of disbelief when the settings don't take such an approach to their world-building.

Coidzor
2011-01-18, 05:27 AM
....What? :smallyuk::smallconfused::smalleek::smallconfused:

You're going to need to be a little bit more clear here Frozen Feet.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-18, 05:40 AM
I do?

Okay, how about this: for some D&D players, it breaks their suspension of disbelief when a D&D setting could not exist/work/whatever under their interpretation of the game rules.

In broader terms, trying to immerse yourself in a setting while clinging into super-rationalistic mindset is bound to cause trouble when you're reading fantasy, and the setting was not build with such attitude or premises in mind.

Eldan
2011-01-18, 05:40 AM
What I think he means is:

In most established settings, especially the older ones that did not start during third edition, like Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms, magic is clearly not over-abundant and easily available to the common population, and most problems affecting them are not solved with magic, but with various levels of medieval or dark ages technology similar to what could conceivably be found on Earth.
So, while the rules clearly state that every village has a handful of magic-capable characters, and that items of produce food and drink and cure disease could conceivably make peasants rather superfluous, this is clearly not the case in the fluff as presented.

So, there are two approaches to this: change the fluff to support the rules more closely, which results in various degrees of tippyverse-ness. Or, alternatively, assume that, while it is not supported in the rules much, magic is in fact rare and dangerous, and not used by mages for such trivial (to them) concerns as feeding peasants.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 06:03 AM
... that's like saying growing rice in a wet environment is not technology, because it's "easier" than growing wheat in a desert. Magic is a resource of nature, just like water or iron; using magic is technology. It doesn't matter if it bears no resemblance to technology of non-magical locale.

Erm, no, it's not. It's not a technology if you grow rice in a wet environment. Technology is when you use tools to solve a problem. You may use tools to grow the rice, but the growth of the rice is a natural phenomenon, not technology.

Growing it in a desert encourages the development of technologies like irrigation and better iron ploughs because it's harder.

Also, magic often isn't a resource. It's not something you can get better at using, unlike iron or water. Magic is a powerful consiousness which you negotiate with. People aren't resources, especially when those people don't want to be controlled by you.

Eldan
2011-01-18, 06:06 AM
Of course people are a resource, and everyone is using them all the time. Try getting through life for a few days without using other people, or things produced by them.

And of course you can get better at using magic. Name me a single setting where wizards do not go through some kind of apprenticeship. Even sorcerers (in the D&D sense) train.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 06:15 AM
Of course people are a resource, and everyone is using them all the time. Try getting through life for a few days without using other people, or things produced by them.

And of course you can get better at using magic. Name me a single setting where wizards do not go through some kind of apprenticeship. Even sorcerers (in the D&D sense) train.

You use the products of people's labour, that they make because they want stuff from you. Wild magic doesn't want the products of your labour, often.

White wolf fey. They get more powerful by getting more contracts with nature. They don't train at magic, they negotiate. You don't go through apprenticeships either.

Edit. Humans are active beings with purposes that align with yours, not resources. You can treat them as resources, with enslavement, but is distinguishable from science and technology. Likewise you can enslave wild magic- say in warhammer 40K with chaos- but there are horrible, horrific consequences, and it's very distinguishable from science.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-18, 06:42 AM
Erm, no, it's not. It's not a technology if you grow rice in a wet environment. Technology is when you use tools to solve a problem. You may use tools to grow the rice, but the growth of the rice is a natural phenomenon, not technology.
The problem is having to eat, and the tool you use to solve it is rice. Think for a moment: you're effectively claiming agriculture is not technolgy.

Growing it in a desert encourages the development of technologies like irrigation and better iron ploughs because it's harder.

Yes, but it doesn't make growing rice in wetlands any less a technology. Furthermore, trying to use same methods to grow rice would be doomed to fail; complex technology is not superior or "more technological" by virtue being more complex; at the end of the day, most technological solutions gravitate towards the simplest one possible. So magic being easier does not make it anti-thetical to technology; it makes it a superior technology.


Also, magic often isn't a resource. It's not something you can get better at using, unlike iron or water. Magic is a powerful consiousness which you negotiate with. People aren't resources, especially when those people don't want to be controlled by you.

Oh boy, I could spend a whole day listing all setting where that premise is wrong. You are also dead wrong on people being resources; Goodness's sake, the whole field of managing worker is even called Human Resources here in real life!

By your own definition: technology is using tools to solve problems. Just because the "tool" is sentient or needs to be negotiated with is not contradictory to that definition - just look at dogs, or other domestic animals! Co-operation with other species is technology.


You use the products of people's labour, that they make because they want stuff from you. Wild magic doesn't want the products of your labour, often.

That's irrelevant. Ever heard of parasites? They take from a host without ever giving anything in return. Parasitic technology is fully possible.


White wolf fey. They get more powerful by getting more contracts with nature. They don't train at magic, they negotiate. You don't go through apprenticeships either.
Ah, but they train in negotiation. That's something you can get better at. Whether or not they go through apprenticeship is irrelevant; negotiation with higher forces to achieve an end can easily count or serve as a basis for technology.

Eldan
2011-01-18, 06:46 AM
And expanding on the human resources issue:

Problem: I want people to be nice to me.
Solution: I'm nice to them.
Tool used: friendly conversation.

Problem: Feeling lonely.
Solution: Find Lover.
Tool used: Romantic interaction.

Problem: Not enough time in a day to manage my business all by myself.
Solution: Hire workers.
Tool used: Business contracts, money.

There. You have a pool of people outside your window you use as a resource to find, among them, those you need or are willing to, interact with in a certain way.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 07:49 AM
The problem is having to eat, and the tool you use to solve it is rice. Think for a moment: you're effectively claiming agriculture is not technolgy.

It isn't.


A tool is a device that can be used to produce or achieve something, but that is not consumed in the process. Colloquially a tool can also be a procedure or process used for a specific purpose.

A good seed is technology. Agriculture, as it exists in the wild, isn't. Of course, if you use a wide enough definition everything becomes a technology. The particular purpose of this discussion is to claim that sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology. If you just claim that everything with a purpose or use including nature is technology this discussion becomes pointless.


Yes, but it doesn't make growing rice in wetlands any less a technology. Furthermore, trying to use same methods to grow rice would be doomed to fail; complex technology is not superior or "more technological" by virtue being more complex; at the end of the day, most technological solutions gravitate towards the simplest one possible. So magic being easier does not make it anti-thetical to technology; it makes it a superior technology.

Magic being easier to use means you have no reason to search for a simpler way to do things. That's the idea- that because magic is so useful people wouldn't need to try and find a simpler solution.

Besides, you're asking beings, such as thor, for help. If you're going to define asking people for help as technology this discussion is pointless.


Oh boy, I could spend a whole day listing all setting where that premise is wrong. You are also dead wrong on people being resources; Goodness's sake, the whole field of managing worker is even called Human Resources here in real life!

Yes, and that term is widely regarded as being dehumanizing and wrong by people who aren't managers. The reason is that treating humans like resources (to be expended, used up) is highly destructive to our minds. And wild magic is even worse in those regards.


By your own definition: technology is using tools to solve problems. Just because the "tool" is sentient or needs to be negotiated with is not contradictory to that definition - just look at dogs, or other domestic animals! Co-operation with other species is technology.

Dogs obey us. We don't negotiate with them. We train them to work with us. You can't train fey.


Ah, but they train in negotiation. That's something you can get better at. Whether or not they go through apprenticeship is irrelevant; negotiation with higher forces to achieve an end can easily count or serve as a basis for technology.

So magic is indistinguishavle from technology because everything is technology.

Eldan
2011-01-18, 07:52 AM
Oh? Try not feeding a dog for a few days, and look how cooperative they get. There are more than enough cases of people being attacked by their own dogs when treating them badly.

It is a cooperation. We provide the dog with food and shelter, in exchange, they provide services to us. Classical case of mutualistic symbiosis.

Jayabalard
2011-01-18, 08:12 AM
The problem is having to eat, and the tool you use to solve it is rice. No, that's not what that word means. Rice is not a tool, and using it to feed people is not technology.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-18, 08:25 AM
It isn't.


A good seed is technology. Agriculture, as it exists in the wild, isn't. Of course, if you use a wide enough definition everything becomes a technology. The particular purpose of this discussion is to claim that sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology. If you just claim that everything with a purpose or use including nature is technology this discussion becomes pointless.

. . .

You must be pulling my leg. (http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/198/d/8/U_SRS_by_Danny1364.png) My whole example was based on growing rice to feed yourself; that doesn't happen in the wilds. Agriculture, by its definition, does not exist in the wilds, as it requires a species to direct it. (Jayabalard: you're taking my sentence out of context; I specifically said growing rice, as in planting the seeds, flooding the fields, harvesting and all the other stuff that implies. I'm starting to feel you both misread my original sentence.)

I was discussing technology by the definition you gave me: using a tool to achieve a goal, or, in different terms, applied science. That includes social sciences. Any natural phenomenom utilized in pursuit of a goal is technology, whether that be training or breeding other living beings or ourselves, directing flow of water, or channeling magical energy. Yes, the definition is that broad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology)


Magic being easier to use means you have no reason to search for a simpler way to do things. That's the idea- that because magic is so useful people wouldn't need to try and find a simpler solution.

The basic form of an axe has stayed the same for aeons, because there isn't a simpler way to do what it does; axes are technology none the less. As pointed out, all technology strives for simplest solution - simplicity does not make something "non-technology".


Besides, you're asking beings, such as thor, for help. If you're going to define asking people for help as technology this discussion is pointless.

...

So magic is indistinguishavle from technology because everything is technology.

For the love of... you have it right there in my quote. Read:


Negotiation with higher forces to achieve an end can easily count or serve as a basis for technology.

Asking Thor for help is not technology - building a whole structural sub-system around social interaction is. That it relies on a sentient force is irrelevant - so does using dogs for hunting. The mechanisms by which Thor, or any other god, produce the end result we benefit from might be unknown to us, but such "black box" technology is technology none the less.


Yes, and that term is widely regarded as being dehumanizing and wrong by people who aren't managers. The reason is that treating humans like resources (to be expended, used up) is highly destructive to our minds. And wild magic is even worse in those regards.

That's mostly a matter of opinion - if you want to read notions of abuse into term "Human Resources", that's your business. Personally, I don't; I don't abuse my knives to the breaking point either each time I use them, quite the opposite. Some people, including me, subscribe to the notion that one should keep good care of their resources, human or not, alive or not. You don't do much with a crazy underling or wet gunpowder.


Dogs obey us. We don't negotiate with them. We train them to work with us. You can't train fey.

And you can't train fey because...?

Regardless of how things happen to be in one setting, there are other settings, including many (most, I'd say) D&D ones, where yes, you can train a fey, or where magic is a non-sentient force of nature you use like you would any other force of nature. You're arguing a specific case that does not make an apt generalization.

Coidzor
2011-01-18, 08:27 AM
This discussion reminds me of a certain SMBC comic (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1652) with the use of technology as even ideas.

Eldan
2011-01-18, 08:31 AM
To expand on what Frozen Feet said about Technology and worship above:

Saying "Hey, Thor, could you make me strong so I can kill that guy?" isn't really technology.

However, building a system of rituals, prayers, magical symbols and a church/temple structure to support priests who then can more efficiently pray to Thor? That's technology.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-18, 08:39 AM
This discussion reminds me of a certain SMBC comic (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1652) with the use of technology as even ideas.

To comment on this a bit: random bits and pieces of philosophy (etc.) don't count as technology, because they can't be applied towards a concrete goal. However, methods of teaching, for example, do count; they might be "intangible", in some sense, but they're applied in a very concrete manner towards a goal. (Of course, this means a random chunk of philosophy can make transition to technology if some practical application is found - it's "Science to Applied Science.)

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 10:00 AM
. . .

You must be pulling my leg. (http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/198/d/8/U_SRS_by_Danny1364.png) My whole example was based on growing rice to feed yourself; that doesn't happen in the wilds. Agriculture, by its definition, does not exist in the wilds, as it requires a species to direct it. (Jayabalard: you're taking my sentence out of context; I specifically said growing rice, as in planting the seeds, flooding the fields, harvesting and all the other stuff that implies. I'm starting to feel you both misread my original sentence.)

Now you have defined it more carefully we can talk. Aspects of agriculture are technology. I thought the discussion was whether agriculture was technology if it didn't require much or any work. Technology is normally more formally defined as the use of tools for some sort of purpose. When you use tools to plant seeds, flood the fields, and harvest it, then it's technological. Agriculture encourages the use of tools, and involves them.



I was discussing technology by the definition you gave me: using a tool to achieve a goal, or, in different terms, applied science. That includes social sciences. Any natural phenomenom utilized in pursuit of a goal is technology, whether that be training or breeding other living beings or ourselves, directing flow of water, or channeling magical energy. Yes, the definition is that broad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology)


Yes.

Edit. Oh. I don't see where the wikipedia article supports your definition of politics as a technology. It seems to me that's an expanded usage you just made up. Otherwise though, if you can utilize a natural phenomenon in pursuit of a goal, sure, it's technology.


The basic form of an axe has stayed the same for aeons, because there isn't a simpler way to do what it does; axes are technology none the less. As pointed out, all technology strives for simplest solution - simplicity does not make something "non-technology".

In the context of this discussion, we were talking about magic impeding technology. If the simplest solution is not developing, then magic is impeding technology. It doesn't matter whether asking thor to make food is or isn't technology, they're still not developing. And defining asking people for help as technology is an incredibly wide definition of technology that isn't supported by the wikipedia article.


Asking Thor for help is not technology - building a whole structural sub-system around social interaction is. That it relies on a sentient force is irrelevant - so does using dogs for hunting. The mechanisms by which Thor, or any other god, produce the end result we benefit from might be unknown to us, but such "black box" technology is technology none the less.

Well, that's an incredibly wide definition of technology. I'm not sure where you get it.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=849&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&q=%22Hunting+is+a+technology%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=caf4a92f5362f681

You're the second person on the internet to say that hunting is a technology. Most would claim it's simply a social pleasure that involves working with animals.

Thor and others generally work on a "clap if you believe" basis where belief forms them. Regardless- the black box 'technology' of thor is very distinguishable from the technology of the modern world.



And you can't train fey because...?

They're chaotic and wild.


Regardless of how things happen to be in one setting, there are other settings, including many (most, I'd say) D&D ones, where yes, you can train a fey, or where magic is a non-sentient force of nature you use like you would any other force of nature. You're arguing a specific case that does not make an apt generalization.

I wasn't trying to. In the DnD setting magic isn't that wild. In other settings, magic is wild. DnD magic is much more scientific and technological than other types of magic.


Saying "Hey, Thor, could you make me strong so I can kill that guy?" isn't really technology.

However, building a system of rituals, prayers, magical symbols and a church/temple structure to support priests who then can more efficiently pray to Thor? That's technology.

That's one possible way of doing things. If that worked the rituals, magic symbols, and churches would be technological.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-18, 10:56 AM
Edit. Oh. I don't see where the wikipedia article supports your definition of politics as a technology. It seems to me that's an expanded usage you just made up. Otherwise though, if you can utilize a natural phenomenon in pursuit of a goal, sure, it's technology.

"Politics" is another umbrella term for many different things, some of which are technology and some which are not. As noted, technology includes utilizing organizations and systems, which you can arrange people into, and which are definitely part of politics; on the other hand, politics also includes spewing out lots of hot air for nothing (:smalltongue:), which has nothing to do with... anything, really.

So while politics and technologies based on social sciences overlap, politics is too wide a concept to wholly fit within technology.


In the context of this discussion, we were talking about magic impeding technology. If the simplest solution is not developing, then magic is impeding technology. It doesn't matter whether asking thor to make food is or isn't technology, they're still not developing. And defining asking people for help as technology is an incredibly wide definition of technology that isn't supported by the wikipedia article.

Which is a faulty way of looking at it: if magic really does everything simpler and easier, using magic is not impeding technology, it's using best technology available in the setting. Do you use stone utensils to eat your food? No, because metal is readily available and better for the purpose. Technology for using and making stone utensils has fallen to the wayside, because it isn't needed; use of metallic utensils is still technological progress in some measures.

As for asking people for help being technology: do you view teaching as being technology? Under the definition I'm using, it is; organizing people in a manner to make learning most effective is technology, as are the methods used for teaching them. Thus, organizing a society so that it most effectively petitions favors from a magical supersentience is still technology. As noted, I don't define "asking people for help" as tech; I define it as a basis for tech, in the same way as the idea of "cutting down a tree" is basis for creation of an axe, or "moving in specific ways to improve your martial skill" is basis for katas.


Well, that's an incredibly wide definition of technology. I'm not sure where you get it.

It isn't - you just aren't giving credit to the extent of organization and learning I'm implying.


http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=849&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&q=%22Hunting+is+a+technology%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=caf4a92f5362f681

You're the second person on the internet to say that hunting is a technology. Most would claim it's simply a social pleasure that involves working with animals.

And you're the first person ever, anywhere I've heard seriously arguing that hunting isn't a technology. Hunting requires specific knowledge of the prey animal and applying it to practice; hence technology. Personally, I find the idea so basic I'm finding it bizarre I have to even specifically argue for it.


Thor and others generally work on a "clap if you believe" basis where belief forms them. Regardless- the black box 'technology' of thor is very distinguishable from the technology of the modern world.

Yes, but not for any reason(s) of magic being "non-technological"; futhermore, if the believes used to shape the world become consistent enough, then what has happened is smply that one set of natural laws has superceded the other - and depending on what direction technology takes from there, the end result might still end up indistinquishable of sufficiently advanced science.

Note that Clarke's law from where the title comes from goes the other way - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Modern tech is by no means be-all-end-all of technology, so using it as an yardstick is questionable at best.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-18, 11:55 AM
Let's see, hunting. For most of human history, hunting was a necessity. The older showing the younger what marks were made by what prey, how to disguise ones scent, how to stay out of scent, et cetera, all this collective wisdom is a set of mental tools facilitated by that mix of instinct and culture we call language. With language, ideas can become immortal. Sharpening sticks and hardening their points in the fire or the art of knapping flint spear heads and learning how to attach them securely to a shaft, how to balance a shaft so a javelin flies true, et cetera,
that is physical technology.
I am not sure if hunting in and of itself is a technology. Otherwise anything any animal does to help it survive can be called technology, and the term becomes uselessly broad.
But all the tools, mental and physical, that humans use, that help humans 'cheat', many of which we have used so long we forget them to be tools ? Those are definitely technology.
Agriculture on the other hand is in and of itself a technology. It is purposely facilitating the growth of plants under ones guardianship and care so one doesn't have to tramp all over the place for it. Animal husbandry is the same.
It's an old technology, very old, and again we sometimes forget that it is a technology.
Oh you Children of Raven, you sons and daughters of Reynard, kin of Coyote and Anansi, fondest child of Brer Rabbit and Loki. Tricksters the lot of you, and I love you for it.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 12:07 PM
"Politics" is another umbrella term for many different things, some of which are technology and some which are not. As noted, technology includes utilizing organizations and systems, which you can arrange people into, and which are definitely part of politics; on the other hand, politics also includes spewing out lots of hot air for nothing (:smalltongue:), which has nothing to do with... anything, really.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c6/c6s5.htm


Patent applications worldwide for methods of conducting business on the Internet grew rapidly in the late 1990s. Because business methods and algorithms were not considered patentable in the United States, Europe, or Japan, these applications quickly became controversial.

The concept of methods of organization and systems as technologies is a deeply controversial subject even for businesses, and that's with them using algorithims to determine these things. Applying the word technology based on your own intuition of what system and methods of organization mean is a very out of the norm notion. Politics are not normally considered a technology, and they rarely involve the use of algorithims to manage people.

As such, you are pushing the definition far beyond where it should go. Likewise with negotiation and magic.


Which is a faulty way of looking at it: if magic really does everything simpler and easier, using magic is not impeding technology, it's using best technology available in the setting. Do you use stone utensils to eat your food? No, because metal is readily available and better for the purpose. Technology for using and making stone utensils has fallen to the wayside, because it isn't needed; use of metallic utensils is still technological progress in some measures.

So? Because magic exists, and it's pretty functional, they see no need to develop new technogies which might be able to carry out their functions even more efficiently. And they're not developing.


As for asking people for help being technology: do you view teaching as being technology? Under the definition I'm using, it is; organizing people in a manner to make learning most effective is technology, as are the methods used for teaching them. Thus, organizing a society so that it most effectively petitions favors from a magical supersentience is still technology. As noted, I don't define "asking people for help" as tech; I define it as a basis for tech, in the same way as the idea of "cutting down a tree" is basis for creation of an axe, or "moving in specific ways to improve your martial skill" is basis for katas.


Teaching is not generally defined as a technology, so no.

They may not be petitioning the supersentient being especially effectively. Wild magic is powerful and has a lot of slack.


And you're the first person ever, anywhere I've heard seriously arguing that hunting isn't a technology. Hunting requires specific knowledge of the prey animal and applying it to practice; hence technology. Personally, I find the idea so basic I'm finding it bizarre I have to even specifically argue for it.

No one else on the internet has ever argued that hunting is a technology. I'm not the only one who believes it isn't. You use intuition to hunt the animal, and some weapon (a tool, technology) to kill it.


Yes, but not for any reason(s) of magic being "non-technological"; futhermore, if the believes used to shape the world become consistent enough, then what has happened is smply that one set of natural laws has superceded the other - and depending on what direction technology takes from there, the end result might still end up indistinquishable of sufficiently advanced science.

Note that Clarke's law from where the title comes from goes the other way - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Modern tech is by no means be-all-end-all of technology, so using it as an yardstick is questionable at best.

Clap your hands if you believe magic is dependent on a conscious being wanting something. Stories about it are very clear that it's unpredictable and won't reliably get you what you want. Even if you somehow wrench it into a machine the very nature of reality will be warped around it, and it will probably involve a psychic or mage or something staring down an entity with sheer willpower.

Unlike magical rituals, which are reliable, predictable, and subject to research and development. They are very much technology.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-18, 01:14 PM
No one else on the internet has ever argued that hunting is a technology. I'm not the only one who believes it isn't. You use intuition to hunt the animal, and some weapon (a tool, technology) to kill it.

Oh it's hardly intuition. Take me into the forest and give me the easiest to use hunting rifle there is, and I will be lucky if I kill more then myself.
I agree that hunting isn't technology in itself, but the techniques, the knowledge how to hunt effectively is a set of technologies.

Ormur
2011-01-18, 01:15 PM
Sidestepping the discussion on scientific method and going back to the opening question about equivalent technological levels I handled this pretty much the same way as the opening poster.

I didn't bother to predict what the limited application of magic as written in D&D source books would have on society but simply upgraded the equivalent level of technology and society to something between the renaissance and late 18th century. Even limited access to magical healing and building and spells like plant growth would improve living conditions significantly. Banking, mechanics, transportation and social sciences have similarly been upgraded to cusp-of-the-industrial-revolution levels. But to the casual observer a pseudo-medieval feel can be maintained by simply excluding firearms and that can easily be explained by military magic making such avenues of research unnecessary.

Edit: Regarding technology, haven't you played Civilization where the technology tree includes things like hunting, agriculture, civil service, education etc. If technology is utilizing tools systematically to achieve a goal then all of those things, or significant parts of them can be defined as technology. Tools don't have to be physical objects, they can be methods of organization. The technology of hunting isn't just nets and spears but perhaps also the sign language used to coordinate the hunt. You can argue that advances in academia are technology. In history I've been taught that theories are tools for gleaming insights from historical data.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 01:26 PM
Oh it's hardly intuition. Take me into the forest and give me the easiest to use hunting rifle there is, and I will be lucky if I kill more then myself.
I agree that hunting isn't technology in itself, but the techniques, the knowledge how to hunt effectively is a set of technologies.

It's a mix of targetting skills, tracking skills, and dominance. Those are natural abilities that even animals have, that are quite far from the normal definition of technology.

If you define any skill as "a technology" for whatever twisted reason then a lot of things are technologies. That's not the conventional definition though.

We have invented many tools to make hunting easier, however. That development is definitely technology, and was the foundation of much early technology, with axe and spear development.

Edit. Civilization is not a reliable source on the complicated definition of technology. It's a computer game.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-18, 01:30 PM
@Ormur:
You would have to make magic very common and easy to use to take away the advantage of guns. You would need to hand almost every soldier a wand. And if AoE spells are common on the battle feild, soldiers won't clump in formation but spread out. This makes communication even more important so maybe items of various communication magic. Call in flying invisible mages for air strikes. And of course, someone would research a spell of jamming and a spell of counter-jamming.
Most D&D games don't have large scale battles so you could probably ignore this mostly, but this is looking to my amateur desktop general perspective to be a lot like modern warfare, but with magic instead of guns and radios and bombers.

Ormur
2011-01-18, 01:37 PM
@Ormur:
You would have to make magic very common and easy to use to take away the advantage of guns. You would need to hand almost every soldier a wand. And if AoE spells are common on the battle feild, soldiers won't clump in formation but spread out. This makes communication even more important so maybe items of various communication magic. Call in flying invisible mages for air strikes. And of course, someone would research a spell of jamming and a spell of counter-jamming.
Most D&D games don't have large scale battles so you could probably ignore this mostly, but this is looking to my amateur desktop general perspective to be a lot like modern warfare, but with magic instead of guns and radios and bombers.

I actually figured this would be taken even further. In D&D magic sort of makes large numbers of low level characters completely irrelevant. In real life guns made them more relevant but I don't think the stats for D&D guns would even allow low level warriors to bridge that gap sufficiently. I'm also pretty sure that I won't be playing combat out as massed formations meeting each other on the field. Wars will be won with crack teams of mid-level characters.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 01:44 PM
Bows and arrows were actually initially faster firing, longer range, and more powerful than guns. The advantage was being able to cheeply produce weapons for peasants, weapons that didn't require any strength stats. Bows, in contrast, take years of training and strength.

Even a strong PC will have trouble if fifty peasants fire a musket at 1d10 damage. 50d10 isn't to be sniffed at. Undead too would be far more deadly with muskets, as they would all be able to fire at once.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-18, 01:47 PM
It's a mix of targetting skills, tracking skills, and dominance. Those are natural abilities that even animals have, that are quite far from the normal definition of technology.

If you define any skill as "a technology" for whatever twisted reason then a lot of things are technologies. That's not the conventional definition though.

We have invented many tools to make hunting easier, however. That development is definitely technology, and was the foundation of much early technology, with axe and spear development.

Just because animals have it as an instinctive ability doesn't mean the skills involved aren't technology, if not the act. If someone shows you how to make an axe, that axe is technology. If someone shows you what spoor are left by what prey, is that also not a technology? It is a tool, a mental tool, one given you by your teacher or self learned through observation.

Ormur
2011-01-18, 01:48 PM
I'm not saying guns would be completely useless in my campaign but the handwave of them not having developed because of the utilization of magic in war and for cultural reason isn't completely ridiculous.


Edit. Civilization is not a reliable source on the complicated definition of technology. It's a computer game.

I only used it as an example. You can hunt without any kind of technology (running naked into the forest and trying to bite some poor critter to death) but all the significant parts of hunting that allowed people to do it more efficiently are technology.

The definition of technology depends on what we define as a tool.

I'd definitely say that magic is a tool.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 01:56 PM
Just because animals have it as an instinctive ability doesn't mean the skills involved aren't technology, if not the act. If someone shows you how to make an axe, that axe is technology. If someone shows you what spoor are left by what prey, is that also not a technology? It is a tool, a mental tool, one given you by your teacher or self learned through observation.

If someone shows you how to drink water, is that not a technology?

No, because tools is generally defined as scientific or engineering or mathematical tools. In colloquial use, it's a mental tool. The purpose of this discussion is whether magic is similar to science, as in whether you could distinguish a magical car from a scientific car. Expanding the definition of tool to everything which has a use just confused that.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-18, 02:21 PM
If someone shows you how to drink water, is that not a technology?

I doubt anyone had to show me how to drink water. The cup,and using a cup, is however.


No, because tools is generally defined as scientific or engineering or mathematical tools. In colloquial use, it's a mental tool. The purpose of this discussion is whether magic is similar to science, as in whether you could distinguish a magical car from a scientific car. Expanding the definition of tool to everything which has a use just confused that.

OK, lets look up the definition of engineering (http://www.answers.com/topic/engineering) shall we.
"The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems."
American Heritage Dictionary
(bolded for emphases)
"Professional art of applying science to the optimum conversion of the resources of nature to the uses of humankind."
Encyclopaedia Britannica
"Most simply, the art of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use and the convenience of people."
McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Encyclopedia
Now, anyone can write an encyclopedia
And look at the title of this thread, we aren't asking whether magic is ascience, though typical D&D magic is, but whether it is indistinguishable from technology. And I think it is very clear it IS a technology.
Anyone can hunt, that I agree isn't technology. Hunting well, by not only the physical tools of the spear and the knife and the gun, but by the things taught to us by others, that is technology. Thise things are processes and systems, thoser are ways of doing things that increase ones chances of surivival.

OK, let's say we have a Wild Magic system where you have to make a deal with a devil for anything. D&D magic is nothing like that, but OK, let's go with it. Trying to summon a being from beyond to make a deal isn't technology I agree. Anyone in a world where this is possible can try, emphases on the try. However, there will eventually with enough use be a body of wisdom, stories about what the spirits like and don't like, how to appease them if they get angry, how to respond to their whims and woes, how to summon them without them killing you in an instant for the intrusion, how to make them go away. And if one is willing to sacrifice enough people, one could even do it scientifically, with controls and everything, though that is very unethical.
Those processes and systems, those rituals and tips, those are technology.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 02:52 PM
I doubt anyone had to show me how to drink water. The cup,and using a cup, is however.

If you see using a cup as technology we really don't have a lot to discuss on definitions.


And look at the title of this thread, we aren't asking whether magic is ascience, though typical D&D magic is, but whether it is indistinguishable from technology. And I think it is very clear it IS a technology.

Well then, the discussion is pointless. Like asking whether science is a science. And we shouldn't talk about it anymore.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-18, 03:02 PM
If you see using a cup as technology we really don't have a lot to discuss on definitions. A cup is fairly fairly intuitive, but not completely. And as a learned a process, yes it is. Having a tool and using it are separate things. I could own a gun, or spear, or knife, I could also not know how to use it.
That learning is a mental tool.



Well then, the discussion is pointless. Like asking whether science is a science. And we shouldn't talk about it anymore.
Explain further please.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-18, 03:22 PM
The concept of methods of organization and systems as technologies is a deeply controversial subject even for businesses, and that's with them using algorithims to determine these things. Applying the word technology based on your own intuition of what system and methods of organization mean is a very out of the norm notion. Politics are not normally considered a technology, and they rarely involve the use of algorithims to manage people.

As such, you are pushing the definition far beyond where it should go. Likewise with negotiation and magic.

I admit to only skimming the article posted, but there didn't seem to be any controversy on whether business models are technologies - just whether they should be patented or not. That is an independent issue from classification of technology.

Politics not being technology I already adressed - I don't think it is. It's a term with overlap. To give a metaphor, seawater consists of water and salt - salt would be technology here. You can't have politics without tech just like you can't have seawater without salt, but that doesn't mean seawater is salt, nor can all its traits be attributed to salt.

You could say the same of art and science; both have traits, such as general philosophy, that isn't technology - but beyond the most primitive forms, you couldn't have either without (some level of) technology. Same applies to sufficiently advanced magical society - the beings granting magic or philosophy of magic might not be technology, but by-products of magic, such as magic items or specific spells, are. The whole concept of "sufficiently advanced" requires the magic to take on technological aspects.


So? Because magic exists, and it's pretty functional, they see no need to develop new technogies which might be able to carry out their functions even more efficiently. And they're not developing.
Correction: no need to develop new non-magical technologies; there would still be imperative in some situations, such as war, to improve upon magical designs to beat other magic. You're also making the pretty bleak assumption that no-one with magic will use to attain knowledge simply out of curiosity - after all, your base premise is that magic is easier to use for everything, why wouldn't someone use Divination to pry at the basic forces of the world.

Furthermore, even in real life there's always theoretically "the best, easiest way" for doing things - that doesn't mean it's known. Your whole premise that magic trumps non-magical technology and leads to stagnation would require that everyone already knows, and has somehow through experimentation learned, that magic is indeed better. This already implies a level of technology and education that's relatively high, akin to education and use of electricity in our world.


Teaching is not generally defined as a technology, so no.

That's curious. Over here, it is considered as such. Teaching is a fundamental part of technology, and specific methods of teaching are technologies unto themselves. I'm really hard-pressed to understand how, say, martial katas or written exams would not count as technology to you.


No one else on the internet has ever argued that hunting is a technology. I'm not the only one who believes it isn't. You use intuition to hunt the animal, and some weapon (a tool, technology) to kill it.

I'm going to conclude there aren't much hunters on the net besides me, because a major part of earning my hunter's license was learning technology of hunting. I could buy aforementioned "going into forest naked without any preparation" or natural behaviour of predators as non or proto-technology *), but that's about it; every other hunting method I can think of requires specific knowledge and purposeful application of it, thus pushing it in the realm of technology.

*) proto-technology meaning the same I said about negotiation; not technology unto itself, but workable basis for it. In case of animals, you could say it's their incapability to gather more information which prevents them from developing their natural tendencies into technology; in case of the naked human, he's willfully refusing to apply his accumulated knowledge to the situation, effectively denying technology and generally being an idiot. XD


Clap your hands if you believe magic is dependent on a conscious being wanting something. Stories about it are very clear that it's unpredictable and won't reliably get you what you want. Even if you somehow wrench it into a machine the very nature of reality will be warped around it, and it will probably involve a psychic or mage or something staring down an entity with sheer willpower.

But if it does what I want, then there's at least one predictable factor into magic. And if I can tell what other people want by wanting it myself, suddenly magic goes from totally unpredictable to a social game. Even if said game is Calvinball, it's not impossible to usurp the system and use it as basis for technology.

---

Overall, I don't see much reason to debate further. We already agree magic counts as technology in some cases, that's enough for me. I don't need to get you to share my views of technological advancement.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 04:17 PM
I admit to only skimming the article posted, but there didn't seem to be any controversy on whether business models are technologies - just whether they should be patented or not. That is an independent issue from classification of technology.



: "The systematization of existing human transactions shall be deemed as not involving an inventive step and thus lack patentability, if it can be realized by routine application of usual system analysis and system design technologies, since it would be within the exercise of ordinary creative ability expected of a person skilled in the art to which the invention pertains."

You are pushing the most controversial part of the definition of inventions to a completely new subject which no one has applied it to before. As such, while that may be useful for you personally, there's no particular reason for anyone else to agree with you.


You could say the same of art and science; both have traits, such as general philosophy, that isn't technology - but beyond the most primitive forms, you couldn't have either without (some level of) technology. Same applies to sufficiently advanced magical society - the beings granting magic or philosophy of magic might not be technology, but by-products of magic, such as magic items or specific spells, are. The whole concept of "sufficiently advanced" requires the magic to take on technological aspects.

The problem is many beings in fictional worlds have natural advanced powers. Just by virtue of becoming a god, or a super spirit, or nature. They can do things superior to most spells or magic without doing any. Without developing magic. We generally do not define natural abilities as technology. For those beings, their highly advanced magic is very different from technology.

Conversely, spells and magic have research, are suited for specific purposes, and are obviously tools. They are scientific as you said, to varying degrees.



Correction: no need to develop new non-magical technologies; there would still be imperative in some situations, such as war, to improve upon magical designs to beat other magic. You're also making the pretty bleak assumption that no-one with magic will use to attain knowledge simply out of curiosity - after all, your base premise is that magic is easier to use for everything, why wouldn't someone use Divination to pry at the basic forces of the world.


The point is that the magic is preventing them from facing challenges, like an opponent that can defeat them. In such stories it's a very common plot point for war to force stagnant civilizations to develop, as you said.

There are rarely divination spells that let you probe the basic force of the world. I don't know of any spells in dnd that would let you do that. The most you can do is spy on people, or learn about their history.


Furthermore, even in real life there's always theoretically "the best, easiest way" for doing things - that doesn't mean it's known. Your whole premise that magic trumps non-magical technology and leads to stagnation would require that everyone already knows, and has somehow through experimentation learned, that magic is indeed better. This already implies a level of technology and education that's relatively high, akin to education and use of electricity in our world.

It's generally difficult adopting new technologies. They take a while to develop, and refine. You need some outside force to push you to adopt them, which an abudance of power can block.


That's curious. Over here, it is considered as such. Teaching is a fundamental part of technology, and specific methods of teaching are technologies unto themselves. I'm really hard-pressed to understand how, say, martial katas or written exams would not count as technology to you.


No results found for "martial katas are a technology". You're the only one. Probably because most people define them as techniques.

A small number of people on the internet define very advanced teaching techniques, developed with many years of analysis and experimention, as technology. I can understand that.


I'm going to conclude there aren't much hunters on the net besides me, because a major part of earning my hunter's license was learning technology of hunting. I could buy aforementioned "going into forest naked without any preparation" or natural behaviour of predators as non or proto-technology *), but that's about it; every other hunting method I can think of requires specific knowledge and purposeful application of it, thus pushing it in the realm of technology.

Most simply call it the strategies of hunting.

Specific knowledge and the purposeful application of it, and whether that is technology is the point of disagreement. Running is a skill that needs specific knowledge and the purposeful application of it. If you do define that as technology, then yes, magic is technology. Like negotiation, survival skills, walking around, and breathing if you're going to define natural abilities as technology (aka the gods and their black box magical abilities).


But if it does what I want, then there's at least one predictable factor into magic. And if I can tell what other people want by wanting it myself, suddenly magic goes from totally unpredictable to a social game. Even if said game is Calvinball, it's not impossible to usurp the system and use it as basis for technology.

You can negotiate for things you want. If you do try to negotiate there are likely to be unexpected consequences. Earlier, a demon summoning was discussed. By usurping the system in this situation, you are making it fairly certain you will go to hell and have your soul eaten. There are even mechanics for that in one of the dnd books.

Using powerful intelligent beings for your own purposes is always unpredictable. You might succeed, you might not.


Overall, I don't see much reason to debate further. We already agree magic counts as technology in some cases, that's enough for me. I don't need to get you to share my views of technological advancement.

Ok.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-18, 04:27 PM
Eh, Magic is just OUR word for those things. A beaver builds a dam, a human builds a dam, who is using the technology? The human. A viper strikes, an assassin out of the shadows stabs with a poisoned blade. Who is using technology?Again, the human. Other creatures could conceivably evolve abilities that are 'magic' and use the same natural laws that allow the mage to wield his power, whether gifted by Wild Magic or from long and studious study, the same as as an electric eel uses the same electricity that lights our homes.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-18, 04:54 PM
No results found for "martial katas are a technology". You're the only one. Probably because most people define them as techniques.


... or maybe the distinction is so obscure as to never come up in most debates. A singular kata is a technique (or multiple techniques) - the practice of codifying katas and the methodologies and principles behind it are technology. Please note the first thing to come up when you type "technique" into Wikipedia search. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technique)

By definition, techniques are part of technology - that they start the same should hint you to it.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 05:04 PM
http://www.members.nae.edu/nae/techlithome.nsf/weblinks/KGRG-55A3ER?OpenDocument


Technology is the process by which humans modify nature to meet their needs and wants. Most people, however, think of technology in terms of its artifacts: computers and software, aircraft, pesticides, water-treatment plants, birth-control pills, and microwave ovens, to name a few. But technology is more than these tangible products.

According to this, most people think of technology as tangible artifacts. It's more likely that they simply wouldn't agree with your definition of techniques as technology.

Wikipedia is useful for its references and summary of complicated points. It isn't a source on it's own, especially for dictionary defintions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technique

1.
the manner and ability with which an artist, writer, dancer, athlete, or the like employs the technical skills of a particular art or field of endeavor.
2.
the body of specialized procedures and methods used in any specific field, esp. in an area of applied science.
3.
method of performance; way of accomplishing.
4.
technical skill; ability to apply procedures or methods so as to effect a desired result.

2 obviously applies. Martial arts techniques are more 1.

In terms of whether sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology, most of what we should be doing is working out whether it can produce the same artifacts as science. That is, after all, the whole purpose of the law- that science could produce things which produce effects that looked like magic.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-18, 05:11 PM
According to this, most people think of technology as tangible artifacts. It's more likely that they simply wouldn't agree with your definition of techniques as technology.


And as practically noted in the end of the paragraph you quoted, they'd be wrong. Can I go back to basking in my awesome now? :smalltongue:

randomhero00
2011-01-18, 05:15 PM
Magic- requires some form of energy manipulated by the mind or spirit

technology- doesn't

debate ended :D

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-18, 05:16 PM
Energy that goes to thinking a solution doesn't count as "energy manipulated by the mind or spirit"? :smalltongue:

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 05:19 PM
And as practically noted in the end of the paragraph you quoted, they'd be wrong. Can I go back to basking in my awesome now? :smalltongue:


Technology includes all of the infrastructure necessary for the design, manufacture, operation, and repair of technological artifacts, from corporate headquarters and engineering schools to manufacturing plants and maintenance facilities. The knowledge and processes used to create and to operate technological artifacts -- engineering know-how, manufacturing expertise, and various technical skills -- are equally important part of technology.

It was talking about that, actually.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-18, 05:28 PM
Read what you quote. " Knowledge and processes . . . equally important part of technology."
A cup is an artefact, and the non instinctive knowledge of how to use a cup is a technology. The hunters non instinctive knowledge, learned from their mentors and personal observation, are technolgies. Using magic for any ends, whatever the source non instinctively, is technology.

jseah
2011-01-18, 05:30 PM
In terms of whether sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology, most of what we should be doing is working out whether it can produce the same artifacts as science. That is, after all, the whole purpose of the law- that science could produce things which produce effects that looked like magic.
I would disagree.

The purpose is that sufficient analysis, understanding and use of a system makes it have the same level of organization that our science does.

What I observe (and personally use) as the border between fantasy and magitech is the degree of organization shown.

Fantasy: personal power. Everything is done by the people who know how or are able to by dint of skill or talent. The only way to get something good is do it yourself (if you are good enough) or get someone good enough to do it.
Magitech: organized use of magic. The society looks to magic (or science) as the first solution to an unknown problem. Want a flaming sword for display? Sure, call in the contractors and let them design the thing.

In fantasy, when trouble comes knocking, people look to the heroes or the sages. The exceptional people who solve big problems.
In magitech, when trouble comes knocking, people look for solutions. Some smart person (or many) thinks up a potential way to get rid of the problem and other people go implement it.

I would say, the point at which magic stops being a fantastic thing, and starts being technology, when this tone shift occurs.
It's a paradigm shift for the characters in the setting, not so much a level of proficiency in magic. And very easily, for many settings including D&D, it is simply a matter of time and civilization development before it occurs.

For magic to never become an organized technology in a setting, it would have to fufill two criteria.
1. It is not repeatable.
Every instance of magic must be totally unique from every other instance. The first flaming sword is not the same as the second. Two fireballs, casted at the same time and place, operate on radically different principles and behave differently.
2. It cannot be organized.
People who get good at magic cannot help others get good at magic. Magic skill (if it even exists) is not transferrable or doesn't exist.
Even then, some level of information can still be gleaned and some technology could be made.

Under these conditions, magic would never turn into a social phenomenon.
At the same time, magic also becomes useless as a tool to solve problems. Therefore, normal science solutions to problems will be used instead.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 05:35 PM
Read what you quote. " Knowledge and processes . . . equally important part of technology."
A cup is an artefact, and the non instinctive knowledge of how to use a cup is a technology. The hunters non instinctive knowledge, learned from their mentors and personal observation, are technolgies. Using magic for any ends, whatever the source non instinctively, is technology.

Don't partially quote.


The knowledge and processes used to create and to operate technological artifacts -- engineering know-how, manufacturing expertise, and various technical skills -- are equally important part of technology.

How to use a cup doesn't require manufacturing expertise and various technical skills. It's clearly talking about machines.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-18, 05:37 PM
How to use a cup doesn't require manufacturing expertise and various technical skills. It's clearly talking about machines.
And a cup isn't a machine?
Isn't a tool?
Isn't a thing made by human hands for human use, that is, an artefact?

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 05:43 PM
And a cup isn't a machine?
Isn't a tool?
Isn't a thing made by human hands for human use, that is, an artefact?

It's not a machine. A machine uses energy to operate. It has to have moving parts, baring complex electronics which is also defined as a machine.

It's an incredibly simple tool. I don't know if people would see it as an artifact. All of the tools described were quite complicated.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-18, 06:12 PM
It's not a machine. A machine uses energy to operate. It has to have moving parts, baring complex electronics which is also defined as a machine.

It's an incredibly simple tool. I don't know if people would see it as an artifact. All of the tools described were quite complicated.
It' s human made for human purposes, it's an artefact.
Also, a cup does require energy to operate. It uses the muscles in your arms and a grip formed by your hands to deliver the payload to the mouth, where the contents, generally a liquid of some kind, are inserted into the mouth, without the spillage using cupped hands would and allows convenient quanteties to be taken away from the source, unlike getting on ones knees and slurping like a dog.
Yes, it is very simple tool, but it is an artefact. It may not have moving parts, but a good deal of engineering went into making a cup, selection of materials that don't soak up the liquid, joining it all together so it won't leak, maybe a handle, which has to be solidly attached, that won't get too hot if warm liquids are the designed payload, smooth surfaces for easy cleaning.
As for the USE of a cup being a technology, look at a baby using a cup for the first time. They will try all sorts of things before they figure it out, and will doubtless be watching older users of Cup tech for tips.

Ytaker
2011-01-18, 07:18 PM
The article was describing what people generally thought of as technology, with regards to amazing technology. A cup is technology, albeit, primitive technology, and probably would not be thought of as technology by people. I'm not sure if people would describe it as an artifact of technology, unlike a plane.

The thing has to modify energy in some way to be a machine. A cup doesn't modify energy.


# A machine is any that uses energy to perform some activity. In common usage, the meaning is that of a device having parts that perform or assist in performing any type of work. A simple machine is a device that transforms the direction or magnitude of a force without consuming any energy.

You use energy to manipulate it, and we don't define our arms as technology.

So in other words, manners is also a technology. I googled that. You're the only person on the web to propose that. This view is unique to you. This is why expanding the definition of technology outwards makes the discussion meaningless.

If you simply define technology as something you do for some purpose then everything fits since we do almost everything with some purpose. As such, you would have made this discussion meaningless, since technology no longer distinguishes between breathing, flying, and throwing a fireball.