Discuss: Magic, or science?

[TheManicMonocle]

You've probably heard this quote before, most notably from the thor movie "magic is just science we don't understand yet." To this end, I have a few examples I thought up that you all might find very interesting.

A woman mixes strange ingredients over a fire and stirs. Strange colored smoke wafts up. Have I described a witch, or a chemist?

A man constructs a circle of metal to contain a powerful energy. Have I described an electrical engineer, or a demon summoner?

A thing exists that you cannot touch or you will surely die. Even being in the same room is risky. Cursed Idol, or radioactive waste?

A man speaks long words in an unknown, long dead language. He writes with strange symbols. Wizard, or scientist?

[Razade]

You've probably heard this quote before, most notably from the thor movie "magic is just science we don't understand yet." To this end, I have a few examples I thought up that you all might find very interesting.

Yes, it's just a shortening of one of Clarke's Laws.


A woman mixes strange ingredients over a fire and stirs. Strange colored smoke wafts up. Have I described a witch, or a chemist?

Or a cook?


A man constructs a circle of metal to contain a powerful energy. Have I described an electrical engineer, or a demon summoner?

Why an electrical engineer, why not a nuclear engineer? It's obviously not a demon summoner as a demon is a cultural thing that doesn't exist around the world. Your biases are showing here a little.


A thing exists that you cannot touch or you will surely die. Even being in the same room is risky. Cursed Idol, or radioactive waste?

Or an animal? Or a plant? The question is so vague...so vauge.


A man speaks long words in an unknown, long dead language. He writes with strange symbols. Wizard, or scientist?

Hahahahaha what? Neither? First of all it's not an unknown language if someone is speaking it. What, is every student of Latin suddenly a wizard or a scientist now? How about the last speaker of a language after the culture has died out? Scientist! No.

[Knaight]

A man constructs a circle of metal to contain a powerful energy. Have I described an electrical engineer, or a demon summoner?

Between the two the latter seems more likely - electrical engineers are relatively unlikely to do the actual wiring. It could easily be an electrician though.

[Lord Raziere]

A woman mixes strange ingredients over a fire and stirs. Strange colored smoke wafts up. Have I described a witch, or a chemist?

A man constructs a circle of metal to contain a powerful energy. Have I described an electrical engineer, or a demon summoner?

A thing exists that you cannot touch or you will surely die. Even being in the same room is risky. Cursed Idol, or radioactive waste?

A man speaks long words in an unknown, long dead language. He writes with strange symbols. Wizard, or scientist?

1. you've described a cook.

2. an economist making a very valuable coin, the powerful energy is its great value.

3. lava.

4. time traveler who is speaking his native language.

[Sprütche]

My personal take on the magic vs. science issue is that when everybody can learn the special abilities by repeating words, hand gestures or mixing stuff then it's the laws of that universe and you can call it science. If only chosen ones can do it, it's magic.
To answer your examples I need more information.

[golentan]

The thing that you must not touch on pain of death... Could easily be a deadly animal of some variety, or a bean bag filled with sporulated bacteria.

[pendell]

You've probably heard this quote before, most notably from the thor movie "magic is just science we don't understand yet." To this end, I have a few examples I thought up that you all might find very interesting.

A woman mixes strange ingredients over a fire and stirs. Strange colored smoke wafts up. Have I described a witch, or a chemist?

A man constructs a circle of metal to contain a powerful energy. Have I described an electrical engineer, or a demon summoner?

A thing exists that you cannot touch or you will surely die. Even being in the same room is risky. Cursed Idol, or radioactive waste?

A man speaks long words in an unknown, long dead language. He writes with strange symbols. Wizard, or scientist?


We-ell, in the context you describe, you're right: Magic is insufficiently analyzed science. Science is magic to which you know the trick.

I've heard that ancient Egyptian magic was, for the most part, of this form. There were no universities in those days, so if someone discovered a neat trick the priestly guild would record it as 'secret knowledge' which only they know how to do. The idea of publishing it so that everyone could do it seemed quite silly to them, who knows what the common people would get up to if they knew, say, that if you mixed three different powders together they'd go boom?

But ... looking at it another way, magic and science really aren't related at all. I'll let the Sorcerer RPG (http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/apprent.pdf) talk to this older understanding.



In this roleplaying game, each player creates and runs a powerful
sorcerer in the modern-day world. Each character (PC) comes equipped with at
least one demon he or she has bound and at any time may try to summon and
bind more demons. The demons have tremendous superhuman abilities; the
sorcerers themselves have no special abilities or powers beyond their
knowledge of how to summon, command, and bind them. The Game Master
(GM) plays the demons as characters.

The sorcerer is not like magic-using characters in most roleplaying
games. They are not wizards who channel the harmonious elements of the
natural world. They do not “cast spells.” They know that the traditions,
cultures, rituals, and bodies of knowledge surrounding what we call magic or
the occult are wrong. It is hogwash, flimflam, swindlery, and lies. Instead,
they break the rules of reality to summon and command beings that are Not
Supposed to Be Here. They are outlaws -- the ultimate in arrogance.

Sorcerous magic is powerful, very obviously Not Natural, and has no
true masters. Demons shriek with malicious delight or lick their brutish lips in
anticipation as they materialize from Outside and match their power against the
sorcerer's wits. Sorcerous deeds mix the heady possibility of awesome power
and the certainty of blood-freezing danger. If you risk all on a crucial bargain
with a demon, get nervous when it readily agrees . . . what have you missed?


Looked at that way, magic and science are two entirely separate things. "Science" is working using the natural laws of the world. Even if it's something incredible like bringing light into darkness, or flying through the air, or speaking to a person on the other side of the planet, it's still not magic so long as you can repeatably execute the operation using mechanisms that follow from the basic principles of physical/chemical laws. It may be fantastic and amazing, but it's still not magic.

Magic is when you go outside the framework of reality altogether. Think of it like the Matrix movies: You're no longer operating according to the rules of the world, you're modifying them on the fly or operating outside them entirely. In essence, this is god mode.

That's why magic and religion are so closely linked: Religion believes in going outside reality by worshiping or otherwise appeasing otherworldly spirits. Magic accepts this, but instead either compels those spirits to obedience or teaches humans to do what they do. This kind of magic is essentially the imposition of your will on the world. It is not repeatable and it cannot be replicated by experiment, because it depends totally on your own mana, your own raw ability, plus any spirits you can enlist in the work.

Religion believes in gods; magic believes humans are capable of god mode cheating.

That's also how magic and religion link with mythic royalty; royalty in these stories have some kind of special bond or special power that allows them to do things in this realm that ordinary humans can't. Even as late as the 17th century people seriously expected Queen Elizabeth to be able to cure diseases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_touch) simply by touching them, for no other reason than that she was a queen and therefore Magic.

Of course, if such magic existed we would not be able to prove it, because there would always be the possibility that the operation was not magical, but simply a product of scientific principles we do not yet understand. Thus, magic also has a close similarity to the 'God in the gaps' theory -- the idea that the province of religion and magic start where science ends.

I suppose you could write stories on either hypothesis. You could write a story in which 'magic' is simply unexplained science, and you could also write a story where magic did unrepeatable things outside the realm of reality altogether. But I think, in either world, you would never be able to convince determined believers that magical phenomena was unreal, or skeptics that it was. The question is simply unprovable either way.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Bohandas]

Magic is when you go outside the framework of reality altogether. Think of it like the Matrix movies: You're no longer operating according to the rules of the world, you're modifying them on the fly or operating outside them entirely. In essence, this is god mode.

If it happens then ipso facto it is within the framework of reality. Anything that occurs is by definition possible because possible just means that something can occur. This overrides and supercedes any and all contrary previously existig theories about the specifics of the rules.

It may suggest a deeper set of rules for which the previously assumed rules are merely a subset or special case of.

In the matrix example everything that the rebels do in the matrix possible within the framework of the larger setting of zion and the machine city etc (and furthermore everything they do in zion and the machine city (etc) is possible in their world even though much of it is not possible in the real world due to the world of The Matrix apparently having radically different rules of human biology, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, and computer science. [though the part about human biology may not count as that's not really an intrinsic specialization, it's a subset of biology, and then chemistry and ultimately physics, so the main characters uniformly having a biological/neurological defect or maladaptation that causes death in the matrix to kill them in the zion/machine city world doesn't necessarily violate the rules even of our reality unless we know the specifics]) (edit: and Neo's woo abilities like esp and electromagnetokinesis that do violate the rules of our reality can be explained by differences in their world's physics)

[Frozen_Feet]

It may suggest a deeper set of rules for which the previously assumed rules are merely a subset or special case of.

It's called a superset. So if the subset is the "natural world", the superset is... wait for it... supernatural.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Take Rick form rick and morty, choose any of his feats and name one that can't be accomplished by a wizard and his grandson.

[tomandtish]

Yes, it's just a shortening of one of Clarke's Laws.

Clarke gets the credit, but it wasn't original to him.

Charles Fort (1932): "A performance that may some day be considered understandable, but that, in these primitive times, so transcends what is said to be the known that it is what I mean by magic."

Leigh Brackett (1942): "Witchcraft to the ignorant, … simple science to the learned"

[ArlEammon]

Yet another thread I can barely touch because of my urge to express religious views.

[T-Mick]

I had a friend in college who studied for a while the Lesser Key of Solomon. If I recall, he did rituals for Stolas and Zepar, for passing a history test and getting laid, respectively. He made a B on the exam, but also ate a plant that was probably poisonous and was fine (Makes more sense if you know him :smallsigh:). In other endeavors, he had a pretty good week. Unfortunately, despite the promising results, nothing was ever conclusive enough to say "Hey, magic works if you do it right." I distinctly remember the line, "What the hell Stolas, I don't risk my immortal soul for a B!"

[TheManicMonocle]

My main point here is that I'm speculating about the science of earlier civilizations. To cite my witch/chemist example, what if the so called witch really was an early chemist?
And as someone mentioned earlier, the whole Egyptian secrets thing proves my point.

Of course, another possibility is that chemistry was studied earlier than we realise and these "witches" were simply imitating what they heard chemists could do by haphazardly throwing ingredients into a potion and thinking it would help.

[tensai_oni]

The difference between magic and science is that science exists.

Obvious answers aside. OP, you seem to operate under a misunderstanding of what science really is. Science, or natural philosophy as it was known before, is a relatively recent thing. Knowledge is not science. Skills, even those related to what we consider "scientific" fields like medicine or architecture, are not science either. Science is a specific process which we use to come to conclusions that broaden our knowledge and make sure that this happens in a way that is logical and consistent with our understanding of reality, as opposed to "this is true because it just is/because I say so".

[Ravens_cry]

Indeed. If magic exists and it us repeatable you can generally do science to it. It might be very difficult to figure out experiments to test the properties, especially when it involves messy things like 'belief', but, in general, if it's repeatable, you can do science to it, as science is merely testing through experimentation.

[danzibr]

Are we talking real life here?

I think in fiction something is magic when not everyone can do it, like in Harry Potter or Wheel of Time or whatever.

But in D&D, I'd say arcane magic is actually science.

But if you really want to call arcane magic magic, I guess it's more like doing stuff not physically. Flick a wand or say the right words with the right gestures or exert your will and bam, something happens.

[Ravens_cry]

Are we talking real life here?

I think in fiction something is magic when not everyone can do it, like in Harry Potter or Wheel of Time or whatever.

But in D&D, I'd say arcane magic is actually science.

But if you really want to call arcane magic magic, I guess it's more like doing stuff not physically. Flick a wand or say the right words with the right gestures or exert your will and bam, something happens.
So Put That . . . There (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC5Zg0fU2e8) from 1980 (!) is magic. Hell, brain-computer interfaces are getting to the point where even the latter could be basically reality.

[Anymage]

I do think it's interesting when "magic" is the result of spirit-based entities (with their own motives and who can be influenced by human actions) over the actions of impersonal natural forces. Storms being brought by the thunder god or cattle being struck ill because of mischievous pixies do create a fundamentally different world than meteorology and germ theory.

In most settings though, yes. Magic is just another form of technology. In some, magic is an add-on to existing scientific laws. (E.G: In Shadowrun, it's an extra area of research but hasn't fundamentally overturned the other laws of physics in conditions where a mage or spirit isn't currently exerting an influence.) In others, it's just another fundamental element or force in how the world works (E.G: Most D&D settings. Even if you take a FRish/5Eish attitude that mortal spellcasters need a special interface in order to influence this underlying cosmic force.)

[Eldan]

It's called a superset. So if the subset is the "natural world", the superset is... wait for it... supernatural.

Except if you look up what "natural" means it means... "thing that exists". If it happens, it is natural.

[Maximum77]

I prefer science

[Lord Joeltion]

Well, what the quote points out is in fact the merely dialectical issue of science vs. magic. It's simply a problem of definitions, not real dichotomy.

In RL, there are many definitions of magic that rely on knowledge more than on mere belief. For example, there were many Native Americans who used the bark from a certain tree to treat headaches. It wasn't that they merely believed it was useful. They knew it, because they used it for generations. It was knowledge for them. But when the Spaniards came from the other side of the world, they saw it was the High Priest the one who gave the sick a tea from that tree. So, to Spaniards, it was simply the "magic of the Shaman". As it turns out, when analyzed in a laboratory, the bark from that tree has high concentrations of a similar substance that is the active compound of what we know as aspirin. So, in the end, the uneducated tribes from America were using simple chemistry before Europeans stopped believing in spontaneous generation.

Point being, magic vs. science is merely a matter of perspective. You can't say the Native Americans were doing Science, because they weren't applying any kind of method, other than (maybe) trial and error. They didn't know the precise quantity of the bark needed to treat a specific headache (I suppose), but it's safe to assume they could easily estimate how much was too little, and how much was, well... too much. But it wasn't just "a belief" either, because the effect of the bark was easily verifyiable and could be observed. They probably called it "magic" themselves, but it wasn't a belief or a matter of suggestion. Chemistry was certainly involved. What is certain too, is that Spaniards got it all wrong, because it wasn't a matter of belief in the least; and just because a priest was involved, it wasn't a matter of religion either. The Native Americans simply lacked the word "science"; and again, for them, science, religion and magic were pretty much related, simply because of a matter of language.

Also, I personally know a whole set of philosophies on magic that aren't related to Religion or don't even require you to invest in any sets of religious beliefs in the least. Religion is a personal philosophy that deals with certain aspects of life that can't be verified and aren't observable by any method we know of (gods, soul, afterlife, destiny, etc.). Religion ultimately relies solely on belief and nothing else, because it can't be objective.

What we call science, is exactly the opposite: it relies on a method, and deals with entities/concepts that are in some way observable, quantifiable and verifiable. It relies on knowledge AND a method, and can't be subjective (otherwise, it stops being "science").

Magic is a mix of both, but is also neither. If anything, "magic" is more closely related to philosophy, except that it isn't about searching for knowledge or finding truths (as is the point of Philosophy, grossly speaking). Much like Science, it's about solving the problems of people. Except that it doesn't need the practitioner to know about the process involved. Magic is about knowledge, but knowledge about recipees, not methods or process. There's also involved a certain belief that you don't need objectivity in the least in order to suceed.

That is precisely why, in a hypothetical society where technicians have zero knowledge of how a computer works; we say they are performing "magic" whenever they repair a software. They may be unaware of the process involved, but there's a chance they may succeed in repairing a programme. Then again, they have no way of knowing the result of their work except by trial and error, because they simply are unaware of what's really going on. Much like the shamans of the past, they are in fact, "wizards" tinkering blindly with the nature of reality; without a real way of finding the truth of it.

[gooddragon1]

I'm reminded of a Marvel Avengers cartoon where iron man is helping out Dr. Strange. Strange is running low on juice to stop Dormammu's minions from coming onto the prime material plane during Halloween. So Iron Man has his AI try to replicate the energy strange is using and the AI says he can approximate it to be some sort of elecromagnetic energy (or something).

I'd say that magic would probably just be a type of energy we don't have a grasp on scientifically, but if it was studied enough with the right instrumentation it could be possible to replicate it.

[Lord Raziere]

Except if you look up what "natural" means it means... "thing that exists". If it happens, it is natural.

Google disagrees:



1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

2.of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.


While super- as a combining form means:



above; over; beyond.
"superlunary"
to a great or extreme degree.
"superabundant"
extra large of its kind.
"supercontinent"
having greater influence, capacity, etc., than another of its kind.
"superbike"
of a higher kind (especially in names of classificatory divisions).


so the supernatural is a natural thing not made by humankind that is greater, higher or more powerful than most other natural things. or something in extreme agreement with the character or make of someone or something. both definitions fits a lot of supernatural stuff, the first definition being magic and monsters in general while the second definition fits the principles of sympathetic magic to a T.

[Anonymouswizard]

A woman mixes strange ingredients over a fire and stirs. Strange colored smoke wafts up. Have I described a witch, or a chemist?

I'm not sure, but we're all waiting for dinner, so can she please finish the stew she said she'd make?


A man constructs a circle of metal to contain a powerful energy. Have I described an electrical engineer, or a demon summoner?

Certainly not an electrical engineer, the copper's very unlikely to be in a circle (now if you had said a loop I might agree with you, at least for an electrician). Definitely not an electronic engineer, silicon isn't actually a metal if I've remembered my periodic table correctly and is almost never circular by the time you can use it.


A thing exists that you cannot touch or you will surely die. Even being in the same room is risky. Cursed Idol, or radioactive waste?

Why choose? Cursed idol made from radioactive waste!


A man speaks long words in an unknown, long dead language. He writes with strange symbols. Wizard, or scientist?

My old vicar would have sworn blind this was a priest with the gift of tongues. Really it could be almost anybody who managed to teach themselves ancient Sumerian.


Hell, brain-computer interfaces are getting to the point where even the latter could be basically reality.

Isn't the main problem right now keeping the things clean? Not that connecting them up or using them is easy, but if they aren't kept clean then the connections will just degrade and you have to connect it up again. For most people with our current technology I see controlling devices with our faces to be more useful than our brains because I'm not convinced we could do sensory input with the things.

Still getting a DNI when they're viable though, because I'm a science fiction nerd transhumanist.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

You've probably heard this quote before, most notably from the thor movie "magic is just science we don't understand yet."

Or as it is stated more often: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (Also in some cases: from a really big gun.)

In fiction the difference is the type of setting and how much words they spend trying to act like they justified what is currently happening. A warp core breach requires many more engineers running around pressing buttons trying to contain is than an ancient destruction curse on the entire temple does, even if the effect is exactly the same.

In reality the most notable difference is the method of working. Most people who claim to be doing something with science build on what works, and will eventually let stop working on theories that get disproven by experiment after experiment. People who claim to be doing magic (or alternative medicine) tend to build on what they claim should work, and any evidence to the contrary only strengthens their belief. There are some crossover cases, but they tend to get fired (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel), eventually.

[Frozen_Feet]

Except if you look up what "natural" means it means... "thing that exists". If it happens, it is natural.

Sure, and next I suppose you'll tell me "metaphysics" is just physics.

As a matter of fact, no common use definition of "natural" neatly reduces to "things which exist", nor does supernatural neatly reduce to "things which do not exist". The words only have such meaning in context of the particular philosophical argument you, Bohandas, and countless other have tried to make. (I don't remember who originated it, but it's old as dirt.)

That argument is, and has always been, obtuse, and Bohandas just happened to illustrate why by talking about "deeper sets" and "subsets". Because that's the concept which "supernatural" as a word is meant to point at. Redefining each "deeper set" as natural along the way is just engaging in moving semantic goal posts. And such semantic trickery will cease to have utility if we ever find tiniest reason to believe in reality-outside-reality, including world-as-simulation, non-interacting multiverse, world-as-a-hologram and several other theoretical scientific concepts in addition to religious and mythological ones.

[JeenLeen]

If magic is real, then the answer to the opening post is that we do not know. Not enough info.
If magic is not real, then it is likely some scientific thing not understood (or some dude doing random stuff and getting lucky.)

Now, perhaps there are 'spiritual' or 'metaphysical' laws that one could understand, test, and utilize in a scientific way, by which I mean using the scientific method to test hypothesis and theories, etc.*. If such is possible, then... well, I guess the answer is a philosophical question based on the definition of magic and science, and if the two are contradictory. If magic is real and scientifically testable, then magic can be done either scientifically or not, just like chemistry could be done via standard and trained practices or by a dude combining chemicals for unknown reasons and hoping it works out.

Or, it's possible (for the sake of argument) that magic is real and not reproducible via the scientific method**... in which case I guess it's magic and not science, at least by almost all definitions of science. (Such also applies for miracles, if you differentiate between magic as manipulations of the natural world and/or unholy forces, and miracles as channeling of holy force. Though I can see most would like lump all such metaphysical <whatever-noun-makes-sense-here> into one category.)

*I'm not a scientist, so forgive me if I'm misusing the terms, but I hope the point is clear.
**or perhaps some of the relevant 'input' are so nuanced that it is essentially impossible to be reproducible. For example, if the practitioner's internal spiritual or mental state/motivations are a primary 'ingredient', then it could be impossible to really test. Perhaps magic only works if done for a certain cause, so you can't test it since doing it for the sake of testing it invalidates the spell. If our laboratory is our own soul/mind/body, then it is hard to test things in any reproducible manner.

I'll also add that it's possible that magic, even if real and reproducible, might always have some negative side effects, like the spiritual equivalent to exposure to radiation. That's not really relevant to the subject, but I feel like it's responsible to mention it lest I accidentally encourage someone to try practicing magic.
I guess, though, the concept of spiritual contamination does make magic slightly harder to test, just like a 'mundane' experiment causing some unintended contamination could invalidate independence of multiple trials. Hard to test if magic works if any practitioner is contaminated by something upon a successful trial--at least, it might make reproducing independent trials difficult.

It's fun to get the chance to seriously discuss metaphysical subjects like this. And rather intellectually challenging to do so without making reference to real-world religion. But a fun challenge.

[Eldan]

Google disagrees [on the definition of natural]


Take it one step further.




Natural

1. That exists and evolved within the confines of an ecosystem.

2. Of or relating to nature.

3. Without artificial additives.

4. As expected; reasonable.




Nature
1. (uncountable) The natural world; that which consists of all things unaffected by or predating human technology, production, and design. e.g. the ecosystem, the natural environment, virgin ground, unmodified species, laws of nature.

2. innate characteristics of a thing. What something will tend by its own constitution, to be or do. Distinct from what might be expected or intended.

3. The summary of everything that has to do with biological, chemical and physical states and events in the physical universe.

4. Conformity to that which is natural, as distinguished from that which is artificial, or forced, or remote from actual experience.



So, in the end, we end up with two defintions of natural and nature: "Unaffected by humans" or "Part of the physical world".

[JeenLeen]

So, in the end, we end up with two defintions of natural and nature: "Unaffected by humans" or "Part of the physical world".

I think, if we want to cover all possible points of discussion, we should consider magic both as 'part of the physical world' (i.e., laws of reality that are 'built into' the world, and thus can be observed and potentially manipulated) and it as external (akin to what pendell posted from the Sorcerer RPG, which I guess means magic is bringing something external to the physical world to the physical word(?)). I think the 'unaffected by humans' part is likely a definition not too relevant to this discussion, since we are discussing magic as something humans can manipulate, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something about how the word 'unaffected' is being used.

I'm inclined to agree with Frozen_Feet (if I follow the discussion accurately) that some of these semantics isn't really important. The meaning of supernatural verses natural, and if that distinction is even a real distinction--I don't see how much it plays into whether we can scientifically test magic. At least, unless the definition of supernatural include something such as not being testable--but if humans can do supernatural stuff, then (presumably) we can try to test it (whether or not such testing is possible & scientifically valid or not).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think, if we want to cover all possible points of discussion, we should consider magic both as 'part of the physical world' (i.e., laws of reality that are 'built into' the world, and thus can be observed and potentially manipulated) and it as external (akin to what pendell posted from the Sorcerer RPG, which I guess means magic is bringing something external to the physical world to the physical word(?)).
You just described sunlight: external to the world, but manipulatable, for a very local definition of "world". If we use that definition for magic, by saying it's from "outside the universe" or whatever, it simply pushes the boundary of "world" outwards until it encompasses the source of magic.

Put another way: if magic is a manipulatable energy, then it is natural, indistinguishable from any other physical energy, and therefore scientific. The usual answer, as has been pointed out several times, is therefore that it is not universally manipulatable: that its effects are inconsistent, or available only to certain individuals (the latter of which has the problem that if you can develop a theory that identifies said individuals, then we are back to it being subject to science).

IMnpHO, then, the only difference between magic and science is consistency: if there is no possible consistency to the workings of magic, then it cannot ever be scientific. If one day you can create fireballs and the next you can't, for absolutely no reason, then it probably is magic. But we have vanishingly few examples of this, since you cannot really construct a narrative where the magic is completely unpredictable and undependable. Plenty of authors pay lip service to it, but when the chips are down, magic users can always rely on their powers working as they expect it to.

Interestingly, in the real world, we do have an example of it: alchemy. The hypothesis that were reproducible and dependable became scientific: chemistry. The rest (such as "mix these chemicals under the full moon for it to work" and other such beliefs of alchemists up to and including Newton) was magic, and eventually understood to be false. But if there really was some alchemical process that was not subject to science - that truly gave you different results on different days for no identifiable cause (in the absolute sense - not "for reasons we don't yet understand" but "for no reasons", although obviously it is impossible to establish that there are indeed no reasons for it, but in fiction you can just outright state it and move on) - that would be magic.


I think the 'unaffected by humans' part is likely a definition not too relevant to this discussion, since we are discussing magic as something humans can manipulate, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something about how the word 'unaffected' is being used.

It's the adjective of "natural" as in "Nature reserve", i.e. the antonym of "manufactured". It is not germane to the discussion, AFAICT.

Grey Wolf

[Frozen_Feet]

Anyways, since I wrote something that has minor relevance on the topic in the RPG section, let me pretentiously quote myself:
Magic is the act of using spells, charms and rituals to invoke supernatural or to effect nature. As both what is supernatural and what is natural are up to the author in case of fictional settings, as are the forms of rituals, charms and spells, we rapidly find out that "magic" in context of fantasy is an empty buzzword. It means whatever arbitrary thing a setting author wants and there is no general case for it.

This is, however, useless for understanding what "feels magical" to the actual people around your table. That feeling is largely based on what in psychology and anthropology is known as "magical thinking". In real life, its primary cause appears to be gaps in causal knowledge filled by associative heuristics. Example: you perform a dance and it subsequently begins to rain. In absence of better knowledge, you come to associate that dance with rain. So now you avoid that dance to avoid rain, or perform it to invoke it. Once a ritual becomes a habit, it is rarely questioned even if no proof of efficacy exists. The act becomes more important than the result and intent is lost in it.

Other features of magical thinking are symbolic association and law of contagion. The former is the belief that similar things are linked and can affect each other through that similarity. Related is the belief that thoughts, emotions and feelings have direct impact on reality. Law of contagion is the belief that things which have been in contact will remain connected. An well-known example which captures all these elements is the Voodoo Doll: thoughts and actions targeted at a doll crafted in the likeness of a person, containing a part of that person, will have direct impact on that person.

How common or mundane an object is, is not really relevant for triggering the feeling of magic. Another well-known example: dice. There are few more common and mundane objects in gaming. Yet, due to a combination of their random nature, people's inability to understand probability and pitfalls of human intuitive heuristics, it is just as common for dice to give rise to weird superstitions.

There are also artificial objects which were made to appeal to human intuition and consequently are easy triggers for magical thinking. Example: graphical computer interfaces. The symbol of the text editor, invokes the power of the text editor. Similarly, it is not a coincidence contemporary people tend to draw parallels between programming and spellcasting - in both cases you are using symbolic words to cause real effects. Add to this generally poor understanding of why and how computers actually work, and it shouldn't be surprising that computers too, despite being common, are frequent targets of superstition.

Based on the above, it should be also easy to see why too rigorous or too revealing fictional versions of "magic" cease to feel so. Once causality between events is fully understood, and especially if it breaks from symbolic association, law of contagion and the idea that thoughts have direct effect on the world, the "magic goes away". It is exactly the same phenomena of ceasing to be impressed by sleight of hand once you know how its done. It's not a coincidence that in real life, some well-known skeptics of the supernatural happen to be stage magicians. After all, such position requires keen understanding of magical thinking, how to manipulate it, and how little the real events resemble the "magical" narrative.

The takeaway should be that it is obtuse to use "magic" as a catch-all term for any breaks from reality, and even worse to pretend it's an explanation. Trying to cram things which don't have to be related under the same umbrella can, ironically, itself be example of magical thinking.

(My own setting reflects the above. As side-effect, pretty much no-one who thinks they know what they're doing calls what they do "magic".)


It depends on the source of inconsistency.

Consider people. A person can be notoriously inconsistent. The low-level processes that give them shape might theoretically be perfectly consistent, but the operations and motives of the person's mind are so many layers removed from those that no-one is really able to predict their behaviour from first principles. Hence the need for heuristics, guesswork, manipulation, persuasion, trust, faith and sciences which deal with high-level phenomena directly, without trying to reduce them to lower-level principles.

So when magic originates from other conscious beings (see 5) above), it can be highly inconsistent without compromising consistency of the universe. The inconsistency isn't due to laws of nature being inconsistent, it's because you exist in a lopsided contract with a more powerfull being and are subject to its whim. You can certainly try to make science out of that, but you are working with highly limited sample size without ability to set proper control groups, across a cognitive gap which may be both immense and not favorable in your direction. It's homologous to a baboon trying to perform psychology on humans.

Do visit rest of the discussion for additional context.

Anyways, some important takeaways:

Supernatural as a phenomenom or class of phenomena is not the same as practice of magic, nor practice of science on the supernatural.
If this sounds troublesome, let me use a homology:

A club is a physical, natural object. It can be well understood using science. No-one in their right mind would call a thug wielding a club a "scientist", or clubbing you to death "doing science".

Yet, when it comes to supernatural, people make conflations like this all the time. Heck, I could say this thread is practically based on such conflation.

But enough of that. Let's talk about the distinction between natural and supernatural some more.

If you've ever played Conway's life, you may know it has crawlers. On an infinite euclidean grid , crawlers would move forward on a set trajectory without ever meeting. Crawlers also do not create more complex patterns or off-shoots on their own, without ramming to other patterns.

Imagine you are a crawler. The other entities you know are other crawlers moving parallel to you, their movement representing your shared travel through time. Let's suppose based on your observation, you figure out rules of Life. You now know why you move the way you do. The existence of you and the other crawlers is wholly captured by those rules.

But there is an issue. Based on the rules you know, they would allow for much more complex patterns than crawlers. They would, in fact, allow for patterns which could create crawlers, moving in opposite or intersecting directions than you. You could yourself stem from such a pattern.

But as a mere crawler, you cannot replicate those more complex patterns. You cannot move back to see if the original configuration which created you still exists. There might be infinite variety of patterns with fantastic (to you) properties out there, but which will never interact with you since they are growing ever distant. Their existence, though allowed by rules of Life, are a matter of faith right up untill you ram into them and are destroyed.

But wait, there is a worse problem. Nothing in the rules of Life explains why there are living Cells to begin with. The initial state of the Game would be up to arbitrary whim of a "Player", but unless the "Player" itself makes itself known to you via overt creation of new living Cells (or destruction of them), the best you can do is wonder. There is always possibility that the initial state was created by just random noise.

And even worse: if a "Player" existed who could make itself known via arbitrary creation/destruction, it could also make itself unknown and indistinquishable from random noise. So its existence is always primarily a matter of faith, as its properties sre outside the confines of Life to explain unless the "Player" chooses to replicate itself inside Life.

This is the level of metaphysics you're talking about when dealing with the supernatural. Do feel free to explain how moving goalposts of what's "natural" is at all helpfull to you, my crawler friends.

[Florian]

The Max Frei / Echo books are a splendid example for intelligent and coherent world building focused on magic. Magic is an extension of the natural laws and the craft of tapping into energy fields and converting them for different uses. The difference between brewing a pot of coffee and creating a potion of Khamra, or between grilling a burger and creating a Goodburger, is whether you chose to infuse it with energy, thereby altering it for magical effects or not. In this setting a "spell" is your personal knowledge how to do that and a "spell level" is the measure of energy that is involved in that process.

A big point of the whole setting is that need skill and understanding to make "magic work", so you´d need to be a competent cook first before you can work "culinary magic", or a competent chemist with a good lab before you can progress from "chemistry" to "alchemy", or be a competent killer before you can use "killing hands".
Now enter the various "Esoteric Orders". Theoretically knowing what should be possible with the use of magic and finding a way to achieve this can be on two entirely different pages. What skill do you have to train to perform an Astral Projection, Teleport or Dream Travel? A lot of things in this setting are still undiscovered or unexplained, unique things where the theory of "why" exists, but no practical, scientifically researched and repeatable "how" hasn't been developed as of yet.

The second big point is that magic follows the laws of conservation of energy. "White Magic" generally taps into background energy, like gravity, solar rays or the friction created by wind, while "Black Magic" deals with storage techniques, like learning meditation techniques that help building up a "charge" in ones body or converting life force. Most serious practitioners must learn both and are always seeking ever greater (and free) power sources to fuel their work - the classic frankensteinian lightning strike is actually fitting here.

That brings us to the last big and very well made point of this setting. As "magic" is an energy conversion process based on finite natural resources, overabundant or reckless use can destabilize a whole area or accidentally kill people. Creating a level 200+ effect in a metropolis could mean tapping into the life force of a whole block of people, killing the weak and elderly in the process.
The use of "magic" is therefore heavily restricted and harshly policed. "Household White Magic" is allowed up to a certain degree (4th level, 20th for culinary arts, 60th for healing and curative arts), while the "big guns", so the "Esoteric Orders", have to do their work and research at the outskirts of civilization, where they can do no harm.

[pendell]

The Max Frei / Echo books are a splendid example for intelligent and coherent world building focused on magic. Magic is an extension of the natural laws and the craft of tapping into energy fields and converting them for different uses. The difference between brewing a pot of coffee and creating a potion of Khamra, or between grilling a burger and creating a Goodburger, is whether you chose to infuse it with energy, thereby altering it for magical effects or not. In this setting a "spell" is your personal knowledge how to do that and a "spell level" is the measure of energy that is involved in that process.

A big point of the whole setting is that need skill and understanding to make "magic work", so you´d need to be a competent cook first before you can work "culinary magic", or a competent chemist with a good lab before you can progress from "chemistry" to "alchemy", or be a competent killer before you can use "killing hands".
Now enter the various "Esoteric Orders". Theoretically knowing what should be possible with the use of magic and finding a way to achieve this can be on two entirely different pages. What skill do you have to train to perform an Astral Projection, Teleport or Dream Travel? A lot of things in this setting are still undiscovered or unexplained, unique things where the theory of "why" exists, but no practical, scientifically researched and repeatable "how" hasn't been developed as of yet.

The second big point is that magic follows the laws of conservation of energy. "White Magic" generally taps into background energy, like gravity, solar rays or the friction created by wind, while "Black Magic" deals with storage techniques, like learning meditation techniques that help building up a "charge" in ones body or converting life force. Most serious practitioners must learn both and are always seeking ever greater (and free) power sources to fuel their work - the classic frankensteinian lightning strike is actually fitting here.

That brings us to the last big and very well made point of this setting. As "magic" is an energy conversion process based on finite natural resources, overabundant or reckless use can destabilize a whole area or accidentally kill people. Creating a level 200+ effect in a metropolis could mean tapping into the life force of a whole block of people, killing the weak and elderly in the process.
The use of "magic" is therefore heavily restricted and harshly policed. "Household White Magic" is allowed up to a certain degree (4th level, 20th for culinary arts, 60th for healing and curative arts), while the "big guns", so the "Esoteric Orders", have to do their work and research at the outskirts of civilization, where they can do no harm.

I'm going to fall back on my computer simulation analogy. If you have a force that you can manipulate in the universe that obeys all the laws such as conservation of energy, it's science not magic. Your example really doesn't sound all that different from electromagnetism.

OTOH, if you can enter up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-select-start and select a cheat code that says "IGNORE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY" -- and if you can then create a perpetual motion machine which runs JUST BECAUSE, in complete defiance of the law of conservation of energy, or you want to give a character an ability such as MP Gift in which he takes in 1 unit of energy and gives out 3 JUST BECAUSE he's operating under the influence of that cheat code AND that these effects are completely irreproducible within the system by any means save god-modding --- that's magic.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Lord Joeltion]

OTOH, if you can enter up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-select-start and select a cheat code that says "IGNORE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY" -- and if you can then create a perpetual motion machine which runs JUST BECAUSE, in complete defiance of the law of conservation of energy, or you want to give a character an ability such as MP Gift in which he takes in 1 unit of energy and gives out 3 JUST BECAUSE he's operating under the influence of that cheat code AND that these effects are completely irreproducible within the system by any means save god-modding --- that's magic.
But just because the aforementioned "magic rules" are also tied by other "scientific rules" they stop being magic altogether? Most magical theories (from RL or fantasy) talk about how it is essential to give something in exchange of something. And it also applies to other things like Ki in DB; "magical force" in Harry Potter; or "the Force" in Star Wars. The magic of mathematical approach is that, no matter what, we can always reassign values in order to make 1+1=fried fish.

For all we know, they can very well fit under the Conservation of E. Law, and every other physical law we want to. The problem is, we don't have a proper way to translate them into "measurable" energy. We can only extrapolate, but still lack a way to be sure*

*And when weirdos fans try to give a correspondent unit of say... "ki" in joules, they need to stick to the same Laws in order for their gibberish to make any "scientific" sense. But they don't argue Dragon Ball is a scientific journal, don't they?

EDIT: tl;dr: My point was that "magic" can always be treated as an arbitrary number in an equation to "balance" it out to fit any given scientific frame. To claim it stops being magic because you can do that, is moot, IMHO.

[pendell]

But just because the aforementioned "magic rules" are also tied by other "scientific rules" they stop being magic altogether? Most magical theories (from RL or fantasy) talk about how it is essential to give something in exchange of something. And it also applies to other things like Ki in DB; "magical force" in Harry Potter; or "the Force" in Star Wars. The magic of mathematical approach is that, no matter what, we can always reassign values in order to make 1+1=fried fish.

For all we know, they can very well fit under the Conservation of E. Law, and every other physical law we want to. The problem is, we don't have a proper way to translate them into "measurable" energy. We can only extrapolate, but still lack a way to be sure*

*And when weirdos fans try to give a correspondent unit of say... "ki" in joules, they need to stick to the same Laws in order for their gibberish to make any "scientific" sense. But they don't argue Dragon Ball is a scientific journal, don't they?

EDIT: tl;dr: My point was that "magic" can always be treated as an arbitrary number in an equation to "balance" it out to fit any given scientific frame. To claim it stops being magic because you can do that, is moot, IMHO.

But why does magic have to obey those rules? To my mind, those approaches are made by authors and personalities who are trying to rationalize their magic systems, both so they can tell a story and , when designing a game, to make it a reasonable mechanic. They are rationalizing magic. And that's my point: If magic can be rationalized, it's not magic at all.

We talk about magic as if it is rational because we are a rational, systematizing people. But if you look at primitive groups. as Frazer did in The Golden Bough (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough), they don't have that conception. There's absolutely no reason you can't have infinite food or infinite youth just by wishing for it with no cost because, hey, magic. A wizard did it.

That's why you're not going to see this kind of magic in a story. Because if it's used at all it's so overwhelming that there is no possible cause and effect. There's no tension in the story, no way to predict what will happen next or why it will happen. So in a world where this kind of magic exists, it has to be so rare as to be nearly nonexistent , the tale of myth and legend. Not something ordinary people can do in any workshop with the right tools. Magic in this sense is best used as a plot device to move the story along, not as an actual mechanical thing used by either protaganists or adversaries.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[2D8HP]

This: page on what Magic is (https://sirjamesfrazer.wordpress.com/magic/) according to Sir James George Frazer, the author of The Golden Bough, seems as good as any other.

I tend to classify Astrology, Platonism, Psychic Phenomena, Spiritualism, and Jungian Archetypes as "Magic" not Science.

A lot of what is studied as Psychology and taught as Economics seems more Magic than Science to me, so I must have difficulty in telling the difference.

[GloatingSwine]

But why does magic have to obey those rules?


If magic does not obey underlying rules of cause and effect, then it is essentially random chance and nothing useful can ever be done with it. It's wild magic with a wild surge every time you try and do something.

If magic does obey underlying rules of cause and effect, then science can be done on it.

[Frozen_Feet]

If magic does obey underlying rules of cause and effect, then science can be done on it.

Feel free to explain any time how baboons can do science of humans, or how a crawler in Conway's Life can do science on the Player, or how a Pawn in Chess can extrapolate Newton's laws of motion.

"Doing science" and "being scientific" are not properties of the phenomenom. They are properties of whoever is observing the phenomenom. The causality of a thing does not necessarily entail that causality of the thing is observable, falsifieable, or accessible to a given class of observer.

[Zendy]

If magic does not obey underlying rules of cause and effect, then it is essentially random chance and nothing useful can ever be done with it. It's wild magic with a wild surge every time you try and do something.

If magic does obey underlying rules of cause and effect, then science can be done on it.

What if obey a set of rules that are alien to our dimension but makes sense in another one?

[Florian]

I'm going to fall back on my computer simulation analogy. If you have a force that you can manipulate in the universe that obeys all the laws such as conservation of energy, it's science not magic. Your example really doesn't sound all that different from electromagnetism.

OTOH, if you can enter up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-select-start and select a cheat code that says "IGNORE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY" -- and if you can then create a perpetual motion machine which runs JUST BECAUSE, in complete defiance of the law of conservation of energy, or you want to give a character an ability such as MP Gift in which he takes in 1 unit of energy and gives out 3 JUST BECAUSE he's operating under the influence of that cheat code AND that these effects are completely irreproducible within the system by any means save god-modding --- that's magic.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

The only real difference is that you´re using a "mundane reality" alongside a "mystic reality" that are connected but have a one-way connection. Using the console cheat code example is a good one, as there´s always a boundary between program and operating system. Your example isn´t that different from mine, with the exception that you focus on the effect within the boundary, where it should be nominally impossible, but ignore looking outside of the boundary and explore how it works there.

Keep in mind that my example uses "Esoteric Orders", not "Scientific Orders", putting a very heavy focus on the unknown, speculative and potentially misunderstood. An recurring topic in Max Frei is the conundrum with "cars": They´re powered by a perpetuum mobile but their driving speed is governed by the subconscious wish of the driver - most people seem to be unable to control how fast they drive, as it depends on their urgency to reach their destination.

[GloatingSwine]

Feel free to explain any time how baboons can do science of humans, or how a crawler in Conway's Life can do science on the Player, or how a Pawn in Chess can extrapolate Newton's laws of motion.

I'll feel free to explain why that's irrelevant nonsense. None of those things have the combination of higher reasoning skills and advanced communication including metasyntactic language (language that describes language) to engage in science. (Language is important because results have to be communicated and reproduced)


"Doing science" and "being scientific" are not properties of the phenomenom. They are properties of whoever is observing the phenomenom. The causality of a thing does not necessarily entail that causality of the thing is observable, falsifieable, or accessible to a given class of observer.

Actually, it does.

If cause and effect is preserved, then specific causes produce specific effects and the relationship between cause and effect can be observed and predictions can be made based on it.

If cause and effect is not preserved, then magic cannot be conclusively said to even exist, because a being "doing magic" can in no way predict the outcome of that magic, and the vast majority of possible outcomes are going to be indistinguishable from nothing happening (I magically changed the spin of an individual quark go me!).

So either magic has a cause and effect relationship, or it doesn't exist. A wizard can't "do it" because a wizard can't do anything on purpose at all.

[danzibr]

I heard something I liked: magic defies science.

[Anonymouswizard]

I heard something I liked: magic defies science.

The body of scientific knowledge, perhaps. Science itself? Only if it's sentient, completely random, or otherwise immune to being tested by experiment (which can be true, but isn't always). Even a pseudorandom effect can eventually be understood by science, assuming the tools exist to look into it (not given, but I dislike the lack of any attempt in a setting, not a lack of any results).

Also, a random effect may look like a psedorandom one, so people will be trying to look into it even if it is truly random, and the opposite is true so not everybody will be looking into it.

[GloatingSwine]

I heard something I liked: magic defies science.

Does it though?

Almost all forms of "magic", including primitive superstitions as mentioned by Frazer in The Golden Bough, are an attempt to produce specific effects by invoking specific causes.

And that means they don't defy science.

The only way in which magic could "defy science" is if there were no relationship between cause and effect, but if there were no relationship between cause and effect nobody could attempt to do anything using magic because there is no way of doing anything intentionally.

What people seem to be getting confused by is that magic is an unknown mechanism, but that doesn't matter.

To borrow pendell's cheat codes example - "if you can enter up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-select-start and select a cheat code that says "IGNORE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY" "

You invoke a cause (button combination, select from menu) and you produce an effect. The cause is always the same, the effect is always the same. That means that falsifiable predictions can in fact be made and experiments performed, altering the combination entered, altering the actions performed to select from the menu, etc. And all of a sudden instead of the same cheat everyone else uses you've discovered a new speedrun glitch, but finding and reproducing those also grants more understanding of the mechanism (a lot of speedrun glitches like this give understanding of how code is executing).

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I heard something I liked: magic defies science.

But what does that mean? Rockets defy gravity, the Mpemba effect (warm water under some circumstances cools faster than cold water under those same circumstances) defies many if not all of our widely accepted rules, laws and ideas of thermodynamics, but is either of those magic? In other words, what properties would magic need to have to clearly be not science, unnatural or, well, magic? It's clearly possible to create the effect of a fireball spell using science, what makes the spell a spell, and not just another way of doing something?

[Eldan]

Feel free to explain any time how baboons can do science of humans, or how a crawler in Conway's Life can do science on the Player, or how a Pawn in Chess can extrapolate Newton's laws of motion.

"Doing science" and "being scientific" are not properties of the phenomenom. They are properties of whoever is observing the phenomenom. The causality of a thing does not necessarily entail that causality of the thing is observable, falsifieable, or accessible to a given class of observer.

If humans can in any way observe and maybe even employ the magic and it is anything other than totally random, it can be measured and theorized about. Ergo, we can make hypotheses and theories on those measurements. Ergo, science.

[Frozen_Feet]

I'll feel free to explain why that's irrelevant nonsense.

You have explained no such thing, only demonstrated inability or unwillingness to comprehend analogies. Or in the case of baboons, a homology.


None of those things have the combination of higher reasoning skills and advanced communication including metasyntactic language (language that describes language) to engage in science. (Language is important because results have to be communicated and reproduced)


And that's a red herring, because you're still operating on the premise that human reasoning skills and language are sufficient to make the supernatural observable, falsifiable and accessible. When that's the premise I'm questioning, because this is not necessarily the case (or in case of fiction where you're the author, it does not have to be the case).


If cause and effect is not preserved, then magic cannot be conclusively said to even exist, because a being "doing magic" can in no way predict the outcome of that magic, and the vast majority of possible outcomes are going to be indistinguishable from nothing happening

Well duh. You just described majority of real magicians. Magic as an act is in no way defined by being predictable, effective etc. If you'll look at what we know of magical thinking beyong Golden Bough, you'll see it better. "Doing magic" may begin as an honest attempt to affect reality, but rather soon the intent is lost in the act and the act becomes self-important, leading to empiricity and falsifiability being thrown out of the window. Magical thinking is largely triggered by, and characterized by, obscured and incorrect notions of causality.

The same distinction largely exists between science and pseudoscience.

[Florian]

@Frozen Feet:

Anything that will at one point have some form of meaningful interaction with the "real world" can be observed and analyzed in one form or another. Outright understood or replicated? No, certainly not.
It´s astonishing that we can handle quite abstract concepts like philosophies, fate, kismet, karma and acting as if economics were a reasonable thing, so why not magic?

[GloatingSwine]

You have explained no such thing, only demonstrated inability or unwillingness to comprehend analogies. Or in the case of baboons, a homology.

Your analogies are inapplicable though. Science is a process of observation, hypothesis, and experiment. Trying to analogise using inanimate objects and non-sapient beings is so irrelevant it is difficult to express how inapplicable it is.


And that's a red herring, because you're still operating on the premise that human reasoning skills and language are sufficient to make the supernatural observable, falsifiable and accessible. When that's the premise I'm questioning, because this is not necessarily the case (or in case of fiction where you're the author, it does not have to be the case).

If the supernatural is not observable, it is indistinguishable from nonexistent. If it has an effect, the effect can be observed and it can be used as the basis of the process of science.

[Frozen_Feet]

Florian, your sentiment is not incorrect, but you maybe talking past me.

Things like karma, kismet, destiny etc. can be explained to and understood by a human, but lies outside the scope of a human to falsify. That's why it lies in the category of faith, rather than science. (In a similar manner, the self-aware crawlers in my Conway's Life analogy can imagine all the myriad patterns which could've spawned them, but they're unable to move back and verify which was correct, or if indeed they were created ex nihilo by the Player.) They don't serve as a counterpoint to what I was saying, which was that a causal thing neither is nor necessarily entails science of a thing, as the ability to do science is reliant on the observer of the thing, not the thing itself.

[pendell]

I'll feel free to explain why that's irrelevant nonsense. None of those things have the combination of higher reasoning skills and advanced communication including metasyntactic language (language that describes language) to engage in science. (Language is important because results have to be communicated and reproduced)



I don't think it's irrelevant nonsense because the important thing isn't the capability; the important thing is the ability to observe the overlying reality in the first place.

Science occurs when we formulate a hypothesis, conduct experiments , then make conclusions based on observations and the data collated from them.

But if we were in a computer simulation, we would have no method of observing the reality of the players. We have no idea whether they have gravity, or a speed of light of the same speed, and really it's not relevant to our discussion.

Unless and until we learn to cross the planar boundary and interact with the user's world in a way that is relevant to ours, any such discussion must remain purely hypothetical.

Of course, if there were intelligent players with motivations roughly corresponding to our own then the most reliable way to manipulate that world would be the science of psychology, of manipulation, of crowd control. Because in this case we aren't so much interacting either with the physical world or the other plane, but with individual people residing in the other plane who can make changes in this one in ways we can't.

And ... and I've just described every religion ever, haven't I? :smallamused:

Magic is a harder problem because it would require us to not just interact with players, but to subvert the game itself. To take control of the game as internal MOBS which were intended only for PCs, and then to access the cheat codes , do stuff the original developers intended to be done only in debug mode. And to do this in such a way that the tech support people won't take notice and drop rocks on our head. Square Enix had a game about that, actually.

ETA: If we are living in a computer simulation, it is perfectly reasonable that the game developers would be able to access our world from outside in ways that we, the Mobs, can't. So the quickest way to use their world to affect ours is to get a developer's attention in such a way that they will respond in the way we wish. Manipulation, in other words. Getting outside our environment to access the OS or other areas of protected memory on our own might be extremely difficult if not impossible.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Frozen_Feet]

And ... and I've just described every religion ever, haven't I?

Yes, and that's how I know you got the analogy.

[Eldan]

Well duh. You just described majority of real magicians. Magic as an act is in no way defined by being predictable, effective etc. If you'll look at what we know of magical thinking beyong Golden Bough, you'll see it better. "Doing magic" may begin as an honest attempt to affect reality, but rather soon the intent is lost in the act and the act becomes self-important, leading to empiricity and falsifiability being thrown out of the window. Magical thinking is largely triggered by, and characterized by, obscured and incorrect notions of causality.

The same distinction largely exists between science and pseudoscience.

Sure, but that's magical thinking. That's not actual, existing magic.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Sure, but that's magical thinking. That's not actual, existing magic.

Unless the two are indistinguishable, and we define magic as "the act of not doing anything observable by thinking happy thoughts". In which case D&D wizards, Harry Potter and the Jedi definitely do not fall in the category magic users.

[pendell]

Unless the two are indistinguishable, and we define magic as "the act of not doing anything observable by thinking happy thoughts". In which case D&D wizards, Harry Potter and the Jedi definitely do not fall in the category magic users.

I've been listening (on audiobook) to Hitler's Monsters (https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300189452/hitlers-monsters), a comprehensive overview of the role of occultism, pseudoscience, and so-called New Age theories in the Germany of the 1920s-1940s. The titular "Monsters" are the mythical creatures of fable, such as vampires, which were used as a stand-in for the regime's real-world, flesh-and-blood enemies.

The discussion implies that "real" magic in our world has the greatest effect on the minds of men; the ability of a poem, or a song, or symbolism, to set the heart afire and inflame men to some purpose, be it good or evil. Spells don't work on nature, but spells do work in the imagination. You can't turn real men into real frogs, but you can turn , say, a human of a specific ancestry into a monster or demon in the minds of your listeners.

When you think about it, Rich in that sense is a magician casting a counterspell, because he is attempting to 'humanize' monsters , and by extension humanize other humans in the real world who were previously considered evil, untouchable, unclean. That's the opposite effect of what the German propagandists were trying to achieve, in that they used horror memes to first create the image of irrevocably evil creatures, then associate them with specific target ethnic groups in the minds of their listeners.

That, by the way, is a bone I would pick with Rich when he makes his vampires irrevocably evil. They were used in those myths as a stand-in for someone else (http://forward.com/articles/126315/the-tribe-that-bites/) :smallamused:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[GloatingSwine]

I don't think it's irrelevant nonsense because the important thing isn't the capability; the important thing is the ability to observe the overlying reality in the first place.

Science occurs when we formulate a hypothesis, conduct experiments , then make conclusions based on observations and the data collated from them.

No. No it isn't.

Existing science has already passed into realms where we absolutely do not have the ability to observe the overlying reality. There are things which are incredibly firm science which are intuitively closed to us, probably forever. As Richard Feynman once said, "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics".

And yet quantum physics produces results so accurate they are the equivalent of calculating the circumference of the earth to within the width of a single human hair.

And it's not just quantum physics either, most of nuclear physics was firmly worked out long before it was possible to observe events at the atomic scale, the "overlying reality" behind how atoms work was utterly closed to the people who first determined their existence. Marie Curie did not discover radiation by looking at things coming out of an atom but by a second order effect on photographic slides. The first direct observation of DNA was fifty nine years after Crick, Franklin, and Watson determined its structure.

The "Shut up and calculate" interpretation is very productive. It is not required to be able to observe the overlying reality to make very very accurate predictions about it and perform experiments on those predictions. It is only required to be able to link a cause to an effect and be able to invoke the cause.

[Lord Joeltion]

But why does magic have to obey those rules? To my mind, those approaches are made by authors and personalities who are trying to rationalize their magic systems, both so they can tell a story and , when designing a game, to make it a reasonable mechanic. They are rationalizing magic. And that's my point: If magic can be rationalized, it's not magic at all.

We talk about magic as if it is rational because we are a rational, systematizing people. But if you look at primitive groups. as Frazer did in The Golden Bough (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough), they don't have that conception. There's absolutely no reason you can't have infinite food or infinite youth just by wishing for it with no cost because, hey, magic. A wizard did it.

That's why you're not going to see this kind of magic in a story. Because if it's used at all it's so overwhelming that there is no possible cause and effect. There's no tension in the story, no way to predict what will happen next or why it will happen. So in a world where this kind of magic exists, it has to be so rare as to be nearly nonexistent , the tale of myth and legend. Not something ordinary people can do in any workshop with the right tools. Magic in this sense is best used as a plot device to move the story along, not as an actual mechanical thing used by either protaganists or adversaries.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

On a closer inspection, we might be agreeing. I posted on this thread by arguing that magic vs. science is merely a dialectic problem, not a real issue. "Magic" and "Science", are both methods. Of course, if you think of "magic" as something tangible (e.g.: "I have this magic here..."; "I have X units of magic in this pocket") it will rapidly become nonsense, by any scientific or even philosophical approach. But "Magic" isn't necessarily a "thing". Ancient tribes didn't know science. Alchemists didn't know science. Their practice, was therefore called "magic". Magic is a world-view, a philosophy, more than an actual aspect of the world. Very much like science (which isn't an aspect of the world either). It may be a lesser, more imperfect tool... but that is precisely my point:

For anyone who doesn't understand the underlying method, it's "magic". Those with the proper understanding, will call it "science". The very same thing, can be looked from both perspectives, and neither is actually "lying". It's just a matter of how much the observer knows.


This: page on what Magic is (https://sirjamesfrazer.wordpress.com/magic/) according to Sir James George Frazer, the author of The Golden Bough, seems as good as any other.

I tend to classify Astrology, Platonism, Psychic Phenomena, Spiritualism, and Jungian Archetypes as "Magic" not Science.

A lot of what is studied as Psychology and taught as Economics seems more Magic than Science to me, so I must have difficulty in telling the difference.
This is precisely my point. Anyone without the proper understanding, will call "magic" to the study of (insert any real concept).

Say I believe magnets are magical artifacts. I know if I rub a piece of metal on this magical stone, it will also "trap" some of the magic from the stone. I don't need to know whatever an electron or EM waves are. I don't need to because I'm not doing science, I'm performing magic. For me, it's magic, and for anyone who don't know better, it certainly is. Magic is doing by only knowing the method, not the theory. Science can only be done once the theory is properly discovered. For magic, a theoretical precision isn't required at all. Just the method and results are what matters.

At least, that's how it works for the real world. Anything else is pure speculation or fantasy.

[Frozen_Feet]

Sure, but that's magical thinking. That's not actual, existing magic.

Once more you're conflating supernatural as phenomenom with magic as an act. Magic as an act never needs to be more than flailing in the dark fueled by magical thinking. Because even when cause and effect exists, it never needs to be the case that an observer is able to link cause to effect or invoke any of the causes.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The discussion implies that "real" magic in our world has the greatest effect on the minds of men; the ability of a poem, or a song, or symbolism, to set the heart afire and inflame men to some purpose, be it good or evil. Spells don't work on nature, but spells do work in the imagination. You can't turn real men into real frogs, but you can turn , say, a human of a specific ancestry into a monster or demon in the minds of your listeners.

So... real magic is real applied psychology?

Because most brutal warlords in history told their troops that the enemies eat babies, that we've always been at war with Eastasia or that you have to save the last bullet for yourself because getting captured will be worse. Whatever works to get them to hate the other guy.

[Frozen_Feet]

So... real magic is real applied psychology?

You are not wrong. More specifically, real magic would be that part of real applied psychology which uses and abuses human propensity towards magical thinking. Stage magic, cold reading, hypnosis, persuasion etc. are more everyday, practical examples of this than high-level national propaganda you are discussing with pendell, but what you're talking about can certainly qualify.

[GloatingSwine]

So what we've done, yet again, is reached the point where someone is using their own internal definition of a word as if it's the commonly accepted definition....

[pendell]

You are not wrong. More specifically, real magic would be that part of real applied psychology which uses and abuses human propensity towards magical thinking. Stage magic, cold reading, hypnosis, persuasion etc. are more everyday, practical examples of this than high-level national propaganda you are discussing with pendell, but what you're talking about can certainly qualify.

Frozen_Feet has it right. Or, as Terry Pratchett said in one of his Tiffany Aching books:



It wasn’t a spell, except in her own head, but if you couldn’t make spells work in your own head you couldn’t make them work at all.


"Real" magic has no effect on the physical world. But the belief in magic can impact the minds of humans, and those humans in turn affect the physical world. It's the art of touching the imagination and effecting a change.

So, yes, by this definition, propaganda is a form of magic, as Lvl 2 Expert asked. So is storytelling. Magic only exists in stories, but stories have power and impact because of what they do to the human mind. Consider Das Kapital and Mein Kampf -- so much trouble and so many deaths over two little books!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Anonymouswizard]

Because I've been reading The Laundry Files (and own the RPG), a question.

A person uses an app n their phone to create a 'magical' effect. If you desire more detail they open the app, pick an effect, and wave their phone at their target. What would you immediate classify this as?

-It's using technology to generate an effect, therefore it is not magic.
-It's magic, the wizard just uses his phone and a homebrew app as a focus.
-It's both, magitech if you will.
-It's using technology to automate magic.
-It doesn't matter what it is, it's magic
-Shut up you crazy forum poster.
-Something else entirely.

[Florian]

Laundry Files is a good example. It is, it works, it is still beyond the knowledge of a "commoner" and you need an iPhone to do it. Beyond that, Bob is a serious necromancer and apprentice eater of souls.

[Anonymouswizard]

Laundry Files is a good example. It is, it works, it is still beyond the knowledge of a "commoner" and you need an iPhone to do it. Beyond that, Bob is a serious necromancer and apprentice eater of souls.

According to the RPG there are three ways to cast a spell:
-Old Timey rituals, the least powerful and the least likely to work.
-Old Timey rituals automated with technology (not really used as the latter types are more efficient).
-Solving equations. This can be done in your head, with a computer, or with pencil and paper. I know Bob uses the first at some point in the series, the second is what he normally tells on, and I'm not sure of the this comes up.

There is a lot more that goes on, bit as far as I can tell it's mostly safety measures. But they key point is you need to either get access to the knowledge of how to cast or you need to be enough of a smarty-pants to summon something bigger than your head by accident when at university, 90% of the population will never for into either category of nothing happens (*cough* CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN). You also don't really want the magic unless you have to deal with the supremely angled ones or their minions on a regular basis, it's just not useful enough in everyday life (although a few of the items are), unless you need then to conduct everyday life. Anything that would be is also hellahella morally dubious despite being exploited by the Laundry and similar agencies (sometimes even with good reason).

Although as a Laundry agent who, at heart, shares their morals (bar the paperwork), there's a lot Bob doesn't use that people like the Black chamber do, but he's still a top tier necromancer even in the early books (where he just needs more training and experience).

[Florian]

The fun with Bob is the harsh line between the known and the unknown. The former accentuates the later very well. And K-Syndrom for mages.

[Lord Joeltion]

A person uses an app n their phone to create a 'magical' effect. If you desire more detail they open the app, pick an effect, and wave their phone at their target. What would you immediate classify this as?

-It's using technology to generate an effect, therefore it is not magic.
-It's magic, the wizard just uses his phone and a homebrew app as a focus.
-It's both, magitech if you will.
-It's using technology to automate magic.
-It doesn't matter what it is, it's magic
-Shut up you crazy forum poster.
-Something else entirely.
Yes.
It all depends on the setting and the structure (I'm not familiar with the story you mentioned, sorry). Let me parse it, to make it clear (I am assuming that for all cases, the character using the spell actually calls the "spell" magic, and not "doing science").

"-It's using technology to generate an effect, therefore it is not magic."
This case is when the character in question isn't aware (even on an intuitive level) of the fundamental laws that make the technology work; but the setting has made it clear what those fundamentals are (or the reader already knows/can infer them). Example: Conan, the Barbarian, using a "Greek Fire" potion.

"-It's magic, the wizard just uses his phone and a homebrew app as a focus."
This is when a device of any type is used, but the setting makes it clear that it is simply channeling the magical force, and not strictly neccesary for the magic spell. Example: Harry Potter

"-It's both, magitech if you will."
I still have to find a definition of "magitech" that satisfy me, but I always assume actual magitech involves using technology to affect a mystical force. So, the setting makes it clear that mystical forces are real (gods, elementals, ki, etc) and that certain type of non-mystical technology is able to manipulate them. Don't provide example, bc most works of "magitech" I'm familiar with, don't delve too much into the actual "magi-science". Then again, maybe Ghost Busters fits this when they are facing "gods"(?).

"-It's using technology to automate magic."
I'm not sure what this mean. Do you mean the app is replicating a virtual simulation of the spell within the phone? So it's more like the digitalization of an analogic device? If so, I think that's actual magitech. (Technology and automation are too closely related to make an actual distinction)

"-It doesn't matter what it is, it's magic"
It can only be magic if no science was done on it. If science discovered a way to study said "mystical forces", then they stop being mystical (unknown), and become a force of nature (which can be known). What people call "mystical" is only an euphemism to refer to whatever they can't properly explain/understand.

"-Shut up you crazy forum poster."
And take my money!

"-Something else entirely."
A linguistic dilemma, indeed.

[Frozen_Feet]

A person uses an app n their phone to create a 'magical' effect. If you desire more detail they open the app, pick an effect, and wave their phone at their target. What would you immediate classify this as?

I would classify it as a person using their phone. :smalltongue: As I'm not familiar with Laundry Files, I have to ask you, are you sure you're not omitting some important context? Because it's hard to answer the question without knowing what the supposed magical effects are.

Commentary on the answer options:

1) "It's using technology to generate an effect, therefore it is not magic."

Based on the above information alone, I don't actually know if it's the phone creating the effect. The person using it might not know if it's the phone creating the effect.

2) "It's magic, the wizard just uses his phone and a homebrew app as a focus."

Based on the above information alone, I do not actually know if the person is a wizard nor who made the app or the phone they're using. It's not confirmed the person knows.

3) "It's both, magitech if you will." &
"It's using technology to automate magic."

These are one and the same. However, if we presume 'magic' follows the classic idea of thought directly impacting reality, automation either shouldn't work, or successfull automation implies thinking machines.

And that's where we get to:

4) "Something else entirely."

There are a lot of magical-seeming effects which would make me suspect the phone is connected to a sophisticated AI, an external server, or an external person, to achieve the effect.

And that's why phones as an example are pretty funny. Because even as they are in reality, they are functional black boxes to most end-users. More, their user interfaces are geared towards same sort of symbolic thinking that is prevalent in magical thinking: you click a symbol (name, image) of a thing to invoke that thing via a form of causality (radio waves) that's ordinarily imperceptible to you. As a result, a lot of people have boatloads of superstitions and rituals related to their phones (they may even anthropomorphize them, acting as if the device is itself a conscious operator).

Few people would admit their phones are magic boxes, but from a psychological perspectice they are essentially treating them as such. Phones are a real-life example of Clarke's third law.

So how does this relate to your question?

Well suppose a person uses WhatsApp to call the Devil, and the Devil soon pops up in a cloud of smoke and takes me to Hell. In such a situation, I would not assume the person nor the phone are anything special. Nothing supernatural is required for a person to use a phone call someone. Yet, magic is certainly being done, as the caller used a symbol (the Devil's WhatsApp number) to invoke the supernatural.

[GloatingSwine]

Because I've been reading The Laundry Files (and own the RPG), a question.

A person uses an app n their phone to create a 'magical' effect. If you desire more detail they open the app, pick an effect, and wave their phone at their target. What would you immediate classify this as?

-It's using technology to generate an effect, therefore it is not magic.
-It's magic, the wizard just uses his phone and a homebrew app as a focus.
-It's both, magitech if you will.
-It's using technology to automate magic.
-It doesn't matter what it is, it's magic
-Shut up you crazy forum poster.
-Something else entirely.

Within the fiction of the setting it is explicitly using technology to automate magic (because that's the only safe way to do it without horrible things from beyond space eating your brain).

[Anonymouswizard]

Within the fiction of the setting it is explicitly using technology to automate magic (because that's the only safe way to do it without horrible things from beyond space eating your brain).

Oh, I know, I was talking more generally. I was inspired by TLF to ask about the image, I know very well that in-setting it's a way to automate magic which consists of using the platonic realm of mathematics to contract Things That Man Who Has Not Signed Section Three Of The Official Secrets Act Was Not Meant To Contact (TMWHNSSTOTOSAWMTC). It's also why most magical rituals seem to be of the spell 'summon brain eater into head'.

I like TLF because it's one of the few series that manages to make magic 1) understandable, 2) mystical, 3) in the hands of the protagonist, 4) undefined, by having the protagonist know a fair bit about it, but not a lot, give the reader a basic understanding of what it can do, then have magic most often show up via technology that automates the process. Plus the occasional Device Man Was Not Meant To Wield.

So I wanted to know what people would think when they saw the image, even though it does represent Bob using a ward pretty well.

[Florian]

@Frozen Feet:

Laundry Files is very straight forward on this: There are multiple dimensions with different natural laws, you can force an overlap and when that happens, you call it "magic", as you force the effect of one dimension to happen in another one, where it is not "natural".

The setting is actually great because Stross manages to build upon the difference on what effects can be "mapped" to our reality, thereby ceasing to be "magical" because they can be analyzed, replicated and ultimately automated (that´s where the smartphone and apps come into it), and which effects only work on different dimensions and will always be "magic" here, as you need to force the reality of that dimension to supersede ours for the effect to happen.

The protagonist, Bob, showcases that difference by starting out as a relatively competent "Computational Wizard" (one who analyzes, replicates and automates magic phenomenons that can be mapped to our reality) and moves on to be an apprentice Eater of Souls and Necromancer, dealing with different laws of nature that are beyond our (and his) ken, as he is human and bound to our reality.

CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN is what will happen if one of the "other" dimensions with very different law of nature will merge with our reality.

[Frozen_Feet]

I can grok that, it's similar to how Praedor defines magic, though in Praedor different dimensions are primarily invoked through portals, crystals etc. (Of course, in Praedor the specifics of these are only known to Wizards, and the franchise purposefully omits their viewpoint on things.)

It sounds like "case nightmare green" is a more limited example of the sort of dimensional collapse which, in Praedor, created Borvaria.

[Anonymouswizard]

I can grok that, it's similar to how Praedor defines magic, though in Praedor different dimensions are primarily invoked through portals, crystals etc. (Of course, in Praedor the specifics of these are only known to Wizards, and the franchise purposefully omits their viewpoint on things.)

It sounds like "case nightmare green" is a more limited example of the sort of dimensional collapse which, in Praedor, created Borvaria.

CASE NIGHTMARE is an interesting set of scenarios, all of them The End of The World As We Know It which includes what the Laundry would designate The Conservation Bureau (CASE NIGHTMARE PINK).

CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN is specifically when humanity has sufficient computing power (including brains) when the stars are right that the probability of Things Man Was Not Meant To Encounter being summoned is 1 (or absolute certainty, for the people here who don't use decimals to measure probability). 0.99999 chance that they're summoned by accident. The only real options for averting CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN are ones that would cause enough entropy to help an alternative CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN to happen.

Or to put it another way, every brain and computer is technically solving equations when it's active. The Laundry's method of doing magic (and at least theoretically all methods) uses the fact that every universe borders the platonic realm of mathematics to attract the attention of things and get them to do something for you by interacting with the universe. While the elder gods could return for other reasons, the current CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN on the horizon is where there's enough maths going on at the point where magic is easy to call them back. It's not certain extinction or even a certain end to civilisation, but as these are things that make BLUE HADES look like bacteria it's rather likely.

The plus side to CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN is a) it's not the literal end of the world, probably, and b) it's explicitly temporary. It's likely happened once before. All other details are up in the air.

[GloatingSwine]

CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN is succinctly described as "everyone on Earth gains the power of a god and the sanity of a week old kitten".

[~Corvus~]

Ah, vagueness defies constraints.


A woman mixes strange ingredients over a fire and stirs. Strange colored smoke wafts up. Have I described a witch, or a chemist? Witch
Our modern definition would rule this out as a Chemist, for this requires a person to measure exact, measured amounts who studies the reaction, etc. YOu describes something more akin to a cook, which would lean towards "witch."


A thing exists that you cannot touch or you will surely die. Even being in the same room is risky. Cursed Idol, or radioactive waste? Idol
Radioactive waste on the level of causing death with contact will emit enough heat + particle output to kill with proximity, not simply contact. Thus, I must default to "Idol".


A man speaks long words in an unknown, long dead language. He writes with strange symbols. Wizard, or scientist? Wizard
Technicalities to the rescue! "scientist" comes from the participle "scire" of the latin word "to know" (scio, sciere). A language that is long-unknown is beyond the realm of scientifically and factual pronounciation. We look for an interpreter as a better approximation. The word "wizard" comes from Old English/Norse "wise/wiz," meaning "wit;" in this case, a person who can judge pronunciation fits.

[Knaight]

Ah, vagueness defies constraints.

Witch
Our modern definition would rule this out as a Chemist, for this requires a person to measure exact, measured amounts who studies the reaction, etc. YOu describes something more akin to a cook, which would lean towards "witch."

Clearly you're not very familiar with organic chemistry - where there's a certain flexibility about exact measured amounts.

[~Corvus~]

It's still documented and noted. THe flavour of the original idea has a fluid spontaneity that doesn't quite speak Organic Chemistry to it; even then, things would be documented, etc.

[kedirimakmur1]

see the other side maybe different...lol