[Generic] The Nature of Magic

[Matthew]

So, in a moment of weakness, I derailed a perfectly good thread about lightsabers in D20 2e [4e]. I thought the discussion was interesting enough to merit its own thread, as it speaks to a larger theme as to how people conceive of what 'magic' can be. A lot of this feeds into the 'difference' between 'magic' and 'psionics'. So, here's the conversation from the thread in question, let's see if there is more to say...

Clarke's law: Sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic.

Similarly, sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Actually, it doesn't work quite the same in reverse. Magic, by its very conception, can do stuff that technology simply cannot.

Well... it's indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology... but we're just splittin' hairs here

No, actually that's not true either, as such a view assumes that technology can overcome the laws of physics, which is impossible. Magic on the other hand, has no such restriction - that's what makes it magic [i.e. impossible]. If technology were to overcome physics it would be magic.

Ah, but we would CALL it Science!

it would be a NEW science, yes, but still Science. Historically people believed humans could never achieve flight, and so, anything that could fly would very easily be called "Magical" but once it happened, well, it did.

Breaking the Speed of Light could very much be like breaking the speed of sound. Though the nuances and mechanics of it are such that it would have to disprove a hitherto undisputed "Law".

I'm not saying it happened, but what I am saying is that "Laws" of science have been proven wrong before, and it's by testing the limits of said "laws" that we can manage to accidentally or purposefully surpass them.

Of course... Modern Physics are pretty solid, it'll take a WHILE before we can even THINK about beating that... Singularity level stuff you know?

Anyway, I think that I could imagine some theoretical super-future where people do stuff that I would think was downright freakin' Magical.


I mean, it CAN go the other way around, (Sufficient Magic indistinguishable from Tech) But I mean, we'd have to set the bar for Tech a little higher than it currently is, which I think is totally possible, if a little less feasible considering the upper-limit set by Magic is nigh-infinite, but here in "Reality" we like to put "Realistic" limits on things that we break in a few decades/centuries anyway... Not that we WILL break them, but we do have a track record of it...

I think you missed the point. Impossible things are not possible. Technology doing the 'impossible' is mere rhetoric, it is not possible. Magic doing the impossible is impossible because magic does not exist, the things it is capable of being only limited by the imagination. This is not true of technology, there are limits to what it can ever achieve.

You may disagree as to what the limits of technology are, but there are hard limits [i.e. not "we're not advanced enough" limits]. Or maybe you don't agree there are limits, I don't know.

Well... if something happens, it's possible isn't it? In that sense, it just meant that what was assumed to be the correct model of physics of the Universe was wrong. It's kind of nitpicky, but it seems to me that in a world with magic, any models of physics are going to take magic into account.

"Two objects fall at an equal rate regardless of mass, unless a wizard makes it so they don't."

Hence the entire plot behind Mage: the Awakening or whatever it calls itself now, (It's fun!) But I digress:

I suppose you're right. Technology CANNOT hit the upper limit posed by magic due to there not BEING an upper limit posed by magic. At least in some areas. There are situations where "Magic" is being utilized to perform mundane tasks which Technology can mimic perfectly, but the nature of technology IS such that it can't match the functional idea of Magic defined as "Something impossible made possible." Though some may define magic as "Something ludicrous made plausible" This isn't what we deal with in D&D. So how about I pose this one:

"Sufficient amounts of magic can be indistinguishable from technology. Though the upper limits of said magic surpass this distinction. "


As a side note on the Physics discussion: PHYSICS doesn't necessarily obey the laws of Physics in all cases. I mean, aren't quantum and atomic physics both incompatible? This means we're either wrong or missing something... so it COULD be conceivable that we can break what is currently defined as a Law of physics if it turns out we were wrong about that particular law... As I said, it's happened in the past, Heliocentric ism and all that.

Once again though: Conceivable doesn't mean anything REMOTELY near likely. It's just a thought I found interesting...

Sounds reasonable to me. I think another point about Clarke's law is that Clarke himself presupposes that magic does not exist, hence his postulation that anything that appears magical is in fact the result of technology. when people reverse the law, I think they miss the point, but we have probably derailed this thread enough already... where's Charity with the obligatory train derailment image?


You would have to ask somebody more learned on the subject than me (Dervag or Dan Hemmens, pehaps?). My understanding is that there is physics "the model" and physics "the reality", the former describes the latter and is undergoing a constant process of refinement and correction (and thus is in a state of minor flux on account of disagreement). Magic would not just contradict the description, but the reality.

That said, I think that very high level physics starts to interact with philosophical, theological and religious concepts in ways that I am not conversant with.

I think that's usually a limit as to what the practioners can do, rather than a limitation of magic as a concept. That said, I can certainly think of modern stories where a character claims that he has reached the limits of what magic can achieve, but that usually conveys some sort of moral message, I think.

Not to mention, Technology, if sufficiently advanced, can go FARTHER than magic ever can. For example, autodeath from being hit by an unsustainable black hole, or moving millions of miles in seconds. Or brutal strength.

Perhaps if you read a particular type of fiction that might be the case, but anything technology can do can be undone or made so it did not even happen through magic [and we're talking about the real limits of technology and the fictional limits of magic here]. There's no way that technology can do more than my imagination.

Magic can't do impossible things either; be definition, if it can be done then it is not impossible.

In fiction, there may or may not be limits on advanced tech, just like there may or may not be limits on magic; it doesn't really matter whether those limits are called the "laws of magic" or laws of physics"

None of this really has anything to do with Clarke's 3rd law or Niven's corollary to that law.

No, that is to misunderstand the nature of 'impossible' in this context. As I explained above, magic (as it is conceived here) creates a paradox in that impossible things occur. That they occur does not make them any more possible. To put it another way, I strongly disagree with Niven being used as an universal statement, but I don't disagree with Clarke.

Magic would not contradict the reality, as magic would be built into the reality of physics, as is everything else. It would merely be an area of physics we have not even begun to explore, nor have we discovered at all!

No, that is one interpretation of 'magic' and in that interpretation it is not really magic at all, but an aspect of science that we have yet to harness. That sort of magic is just man exploiting the natural laws of the universe and exactly what Clarke is talking about. What I am talking about are things that are unnatural or supernatural, things that by definition are in fact impossible.

There is a huge difference between things that occur within the laws of physics and things that are imagined to occur outside of those laws or independently of any laws.

/shrug

I like science.

Sure, me too, but I also like magic. I even like the scientific explanation for magic [i.e. if it happens it isn't impossible], but I like variation as well.

[JaxGaret]

The Incarnations series by Piers Anthony has both science and magic working side by side, and in fact competing on a worldwide basis as economic factors.

IIRC there were "magicons" that were the fundamental quanta of magic.

[Tokiko Mima]

I would tend to agree, advanced magic and advanced science are on a similiar plane. The Laws of Physics are only as we understand them right now. Travel back far enough into the past when rules haven't been laid out for gravitation acceleration and aerodynamics and you can fly a jet fighter with magic or science and it will be treated the same way. There's no context for a contemporary person to understand how you flew a metal object faster than the speed of sound.

Magic does have rules of it own, otherwise any world it existed in would fall into chaos because anything could and would happen because magic would allow it to. These rules are of course a lot more flexible than the laws of physics and science, but they are laws wizards discover and refine for themselves and presumably pass down (otherwise, why write so many books?)

So I think the problem with the inverse of Clarke's Law in the D&D universe is that for some reason the state of magic knowledge doesn't really advance. Not many new spells are invented, new technigues of memorizing more spells, or other increases in magical 'technology' just don't seem to occur because the system doesn't really support it unless the DM happens to focus on this to the point of building the rules.

[Johnny Blade]

Well, by definition, there's nothing magic can't do. But, there's also nothing it can do, since it only exists in our fantasy.

I mean, I could see a world where magic can achieve nothing but move objects via telekinesis. (The powers of lesser wizards would be less than overwhelming here. They'd probably end up as construction workers.)

Or a world where magic allows you to speak with the dead. (Very useful and profitable, I think. And it wouldn't exactly tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.)

I could also picture a world where the only use of magic is transforming the person who channels it into a fluorescent pink wombat with bat wings. (Magic would be a rather weird hobby in this world.)

And I could picture a world where wizards, after years of studying eldritch tomes and ancient mysteries in their sinister towers finally achieve a cosmic clarity, allowing them to peirce the veil of what lesser mortals perceive as reality and ascend to a state close to godhood, enabling them to alter space and time with mere thoughts. (And throw fireballs.)

And there could be a world where magic can do exactly what our current technology is currently capable of, although by other means. (Boring, but I guess that would be said 'sufficiently advanced' magic.)


What I basically mean is: The whole comparison of 'sufficiently advanced' magic and 'sufficiently advanced' technology relies on a specific definition of what magic can do and if these capabilities make it 'sufficiently advanced'.

(Unimportant nitpick: As soon as humans could master magic, it would become a part of their technology.)

[JaxGaret]

Which definition of the word magic are we talking about here, exactly?

It matters.

[Pronounceable]

Magic isn't something very well defined in the first place. For me it could be a branch of science that hasn't been discovered in this world, for you it could be anything impossible made possible and for him it could be whatever he can't do himself. In fiction, things get hairier.

There's no unifying idea on magic, its definition or abilities. Only thing we can agree on is it doesn't exist in our world (even then, some folks may insist to believe in magic).

[NoDot]

Breaking the Speed of Light could very much be like breaking the speed of sound. Though the nuances and mechanics of it are such that it would have to disprove a hitherto undisputed "Law".

I'm afraid you're quite wrong. Observation as the velocity of an object approach the Speed of Light show that you cannot go faster than light. (Merely reaching it requires infinite energy!) That's why Sci-Fi tends to use Hyperspace, Wormholes, or something like that-to bypass that.

More to the topic, science is about observation. If you present a scientist with something that irrefutably violates the known laws of physics, they would not discard it (unless they're an anti-science strawman of a scientist who values his "theories" above evidence). They'd be skeptic and run every test in the book to see if it was really true-and probably invent a few more for the book in the process-but they wouldn't discard it.

(Here's a good example: go back it time to 1940 and ask some scientists what powers the sun. They wouldn't say nuclear fusion as they hadn't discovered that yet. However, they wouldn't say a chemical reaction as the output of the sun had already been quantified and no known chemical reaction produced that sort of output.)

Science is about refining (not pulling out of whole cloth, but refining) an accurate, predictive model of the universe (with the fewest terms necessary). If magic existed and had any rules, no matter how vague or specific, it would have a place in the model.

[Xuincherguixe]

Which definition of the word magic are we talking about here, exactly?

It matters.

Any, I think apply, but lets assume that there's no theoritical limit on what magic can do.

Since it might be best to continue the discussion here, as to get that other thread back on track.


Let's assume for the sake of this argument, that for the magic in question, that they can literally do anything. Not just breaking the laws of physics, but outright insanity. So something simultaneously exists, but doesn't at the same time. So if you put your hand out to it, you would both feel it and not feel it.

Now, my thought on the matter is that if that's the case, is that there are laws of physics. And that is that anything is possible, (even that anything is not possible). If this is all confusing, that's because it is. It's a Universe that doesn't make sense.

But a Universe of infinite possibility is hard to talk about. So we'll assume that at any given moment things are at least consistent, and we don't have situations like that existing/not existing simultaneously thing.

There would be essentially two sets of physics. What the magic user wants things to work like, and another above that, which allows them to make everything different.

Not only that, but there's a possibility that another magician could come along and make it so magic DOESN'T work.


Also, even if it's understood, my thought is that it needs to be said. A games physics don't need to even remotely resemble our own. A world could exist where yelling at a rock with enough contempt may cause the rock to spontaneously grow eyes and start crying.


I guess what I'm trying to say is, there can exist worlds where magic IS it's physics, it's not just something that modifies it.


edit: Since I got Ninja'd and I'd like to comment...

What about a universe in which magic doesn't actually have any rules? My thought is that for such a place, a model of physics couldn't exist.


Incidentally, for an upcoming campaign I'm doing, something this messed up is from where the origins of reality came from. It's going to be weird ^_^

[Matthew]

Which definition of the word magic are we talking about here, exactly?

It matters.

Well, wikipedia definitions may throw up more problems than they solve, but probably Magic (Paranormal) or Magic (Fantasy). Really, though, we are here exploring something closer to the dictionary definition of magic (ignoring sleight of hand or illusionary tricks):

1 a: the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b: magic rites or incantations
2 a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b: something that seems to cast a spell

[bosssmiley]

Applied Phlebotium <--> Functional Magic
Technobabble <--> Incantation
Lightsaber <--> brilliant energy weapon

Anything beyond that is just pointless f@nw@nk that distracts from the game.

[JaxGaret]

1 a: the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b: magic rites or incantations
2 a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b: something that seems to cast a spell

How do you define a spell? How do you define what supernatural is?

This is the problem... you can't just use other words that have no meaning in our world to define it, then you're right back where you started.

Basically, science and magic are two essentially mutually exclusive entities; once you throw magic into the equation (as in magic can do anything, and there is no way to define it), science gets thrown out the window, since science relies on definition and categorization.

Also, would this link have been better?

[Fishy]

Any, I think apply, but lets assume that there's no theoritical limit on what magic can do.

Magic that has absolutely no limits makes for really boring fiction.

If Gandalf could have teleported the One Ring into the heart of the sun by snapping his fingers, there wouldn't be a book. If Yoda could have exploded the Death Star with the force without leaving his backyard, there wouldn't be a movie. If Vaarsuvius could have smacked Xykon in the face with a metamagic powered no-save-and-die... well, Rich would have come up with something.

So, since magic only occurs in fiction, and no one cares about boring fiction, there has to be a cost. There have to be laws and limitations that apply to magic- and in any world with humans, someone would eventually apply the scientific method and find out what they were, so they can make neat stuff out of them. Hence, my smart-alec remark.

[Xuincherguixe]

Magic that has absolutely no limits makes for really boring fiction.

If Gandalf could have teleported the One Ring into the heart of the sun by snapping his fingers, there wouldn't be a book. If Yoda could have exploded the Death Star with the force without leaving his backyard, there wouldn't be a movie. If Vaarsuvius could have smacked Xykon in the face with a metamagic powered no-save-and-die... well, Rich would have come up with something.

So, since magic only occurs in fiction, and no one cares about boring fiction, there has to be a cost. There have to be laws and limitations that apply to magic- and in any world with humans, someone would eventually apply the scientific method and find out what they were, so they can make neat stuff out of them. Hence, my smart-alec remark.

I kind of agree, but what I was proposing was more of a theoretical exercise since there's an argument here about how in certain forms, magic breaks physics. My thought was that was a good place to discuss something like that.

I think that if magic is limited, then it would be part of a universe's physics.

[Matthew]

How do you define a spell? How do you define what supernatural is?

You look em up in the dictionary. Seriously, though, paranormal/supernatural whatever, all are defined as being beyond natural. That makes them impossible, since nothing that happens can be considered to be truly unnatural. That's rather the point, though.

This is the problem... you can't just use other words that have no meaning in our world to define it, then you're right back where you started.

These words are all well defined.

Basically, science and magic are two essentially mutually exclusive entities; once you throw magic into the equation (as in magic can do anything, and there is no way to define it), science gets thrown out the window, since science relies on definition and categorization.

I strongly disagree with that assertion.

Also, would this link have been better?

Hah, no, probably not. I disagree with a lot of the things said on the Television Tropes website.

Applied Phlebotium <--> Functional Magic
Technobabble <--> Incantation
Lightsaber <--> brilliant energy weapon

Anything beyond that is just pointless f@nw@nk that distracts from the game.

Very helpful.

Magic that has absolutely no limits makes for really boring fiction.

If Gandalf could have teleported the One Ring into the heart of the sun by snapping his fingers, there wouldn't be a book. If Yoda could have exploded the Death Star with the force without leaving his backyard, there wouldn't be a movie. If Vaarsuvius could have smacked Xykon in the face with a metamagic powered no-save-and-die... well, Rich would have come up with something.

So, since magic only occurs in fiction, and no one cares about boring fiction, there has to be a cost. There have to be laws and limitations that apply to magic- and in any world with humans, someone would eventually apply the scientific method and find out what they were, so they can make neat stuff out of them. Hence, my smart-alec remark.

Once again, those are not the limits of magic, but the limits of the practioners of magic. Gandalf, for instance, was actually debarred from using his full powers, most of which were in any case unavailable to him for 'cryptic and mystic' reasons.

[JaxGaret]

You look em up in the dictionary. Seriously, though, paranormal/supernatural whatever, all are defined as being beyond natural. That makes them impossible, since nothing that happens can be considered to be truly unnatural. That's rather the point, though.

Right. But then something that's impossible doesn't exist... so if magic exists, it's not impossible.

We could run around in circles all day here until you tell me what definition of magic you're using.

These words are all well defined.

See above.

I strongly disagree with that assertion.

Which assertion?

Hah, no, probably not. I disagree with a lot of the things said on the Television Tropes website.

I'm curious, what sorts of things do you disagree with from there? I find it one of the more entertaining websites I've come across.

[Matthew]

Right. But then something that's impossible doesn't exist... so if magic exists, it's not impossible.

We could run around in circles all day here until you tell me what definition of magic you're using.

No, you see you're deferring to one view of magic there. As I said above, I am quite happy with that explanation as far as it goes and would agree that in that situation magic and technology could be equally limited. However, as I have also explained, the extreme view of magic is that it creates paradoxes by its very use, it is completely impossible.

Which assertion?

That magic and science are mutually exclusive.

I'm curious, what sorts of things do you disagree with from there? I find it one of the more entertaining websites I've come across.

It's entertaining alright, but it's often disagreeable (to me). A discussion of that, however, would take us off on a completely different tangent. If you were to push me for an example, it would be statements like "Catholicism is not well understood in Japan, which results in blah, blah, Nuns with guns", which runs entirely contrary to my experience. It's about as well understood in Japan as it is in Britain (which is to say, not very, but enough).

To put it another, the site is full of opinions. Some are well formed, others not so much (in my opinion).

[Roog]

There's no way that technology can do more than my imagination.

Why do you say that?

[Tequila Sunrise]

The difference between science and magic isn't what it can do--because what either can do is based purely on what fiction contains them--but on where they come from:

In the case of D&D wizarding magic, there is arguably no difference at all from science. You learn a bunch of "secrets of the universe" or "magic theory" or whatever, and then manipulate them to produce "magical" effects. The only thing really different from science is that you can only do it X times per day and only rarely have to worry about the amount of physical resources you consume.

In the case of other D&D magic and most other fictional magic, the difference from science is that the magic comes from a living source--the caster, a god or some other metaphysical force.

TS

[Flickerdart]

(The powers of lesser wizards would be less than overwhelming here. They'd probably end up as construction workers.)

Haha, I can just imagine a greasy unshaved fat guy in a soiled undershirt and a yellow hard hat being a wizard. With a degree, too, because there'd be schools for this sort of thing.

Maybe they'd have pointy hard hats.

[Matthew]

Why do you say that?

Because I can imagine impossible things [i.e. not just amazing things, but outright impossible things]. Of course, that depends on your definition of impossible. I have met people who believe that travelling backwards in time may one day be technically achievable. I think they are fantasists, but I am open to being proven wrong. The point is, I think there are limits to what any advancement in technology can achieve. If you don't think there are hard limits, then we'll never agree on that.

The difference between science and magic isn't what it can do--because what either can do is based purely on what fiction contains them--but on where they come from:

No, because technology is not defined by literature. It exists.

[JaxGaret]

No, you see you're deferring to one view of magic there.

Which view? The view that it is impossible?

As I said above, I am quite happy with that explanation as far as it goes and would agree that in that situation magic and technology could be equally limited. However, as I have also explained, the extreme view of magic is that it creates paradoxes by its very use, it is completely impossible.

Magic is impossible. If it were possible, it wouldn't be magic, it would be something else entirely, something natural in origin. You could call it magic, but that doesn't make it magic.

That magic and science are mutually exclusive.

Magic is an impossibility, and science at its core is the study of what is possible or probable.

It's entertaining alright, but it's often disagreeable (to me). A discussion of that, however, would take us off on a completely different tangent. If you were to push me for an example, it would be statements like "Catholicism is not well understood in Japan, which results in blah, blah, Nuns with guns", which runs entirely contrary to my experience. It's about as well understood in Japan as it is in Britain (which is to say, not very, but enough).

To put it another, the site is full of opinions. Some are well formed, others not so much (in my opinion).

Ah, well I don't go there for commentary on the real world; I go there for commentary on media.

[JaxGaret]

I have met people who believe that travelling backwards in time may one day be technically achievable.

It is theoretically technically achievable, because theoretically every particle that runs forward through the time stream has an equivalent simultaneous anti-particle running backwards through the anti-time stream.

Though, to that anti-particle, it is the particle, and we are the backwards anti-particles.

This leads to one of my pet theories: if UFOs are indeed "real", they are Humans From The Future.

[Roog]

Any, I think apply, but lets assume that there's no theoritical limit on what magic can do.

Since it might be best to continue the discussion here, as to get that other thread back on track.


Let's assume for the sake of this argument, that for the magic in question, that they can literally do anything. Not just breaking the laws of physics, but outright insanity.

There is a problem with trying to have a discusion about something that explicitly denies logic.

That is - we need logic to hold a meaningful discussion.


e.g.
Assume magic exits.
Assume (as you say) "magic ... can literally do anything. Not just breaking the laws of physics, but outright insanity."

Therefore that magic can be used to do things that we no it cannot:
e.g. make magic exist in our world.

It can also be used to do things that we cannot discus meaningfully:
e.g. make magic only exist in worlds where magic does not exist

It can also be used to make our discusion meaningless:
e.g. it can be used to make every statement that you make about any and every world that you discuss false. (Even the one I just made one.)


If you want to discuss magic in a meaningful way, then it needs to be limited (at least to the point that it can only be used to create self-constent worlds).

[Matthew]

Which view? The view that it is impossible?

The view that magic occuring would prove it was possible and therefore no longer impossible. Magic is paradoxial.

Magic is impossible. If it were possible, it wouldn't be magic, it would be something else entirely, something natural in origin. You could call it magic, but that doesn't make it magic.

See above.

Magic is an impossibility, and science at its core is the study of what is possible or probable.

Yes, but that's rather the point. You seek to rationalise magic (if it were to exist) and place it into a scheme of the natural order of things. I am saying that is a valid view, but it's not the only one. Magic wouldn't be magic if it could be rationalised in the way you're describing (to me, anyway).

It is theoretically technically achievable, because theoretically every particle that runs forward through the time stream has an equivalent simultaneous anti-particle running backwards through the anti-time stream.

Though, to that anti-particle, it is the particle, and we are the backwards anti-particles.

This leads to one of my pet theories: if UFOs are indeed "real", they are Humans From The Future.

Yes, you're one of the folk that believes that theory. I reject that theory, but the point wasn't about one individual example of agreement/disagreement as to what is possible.

If you want to discuss magic in a meaningful way, then it needs to be limited (at least to the point that it can only be used to create self-constent worlds).

No it doesn't. You're confusing the actual potential of magic with what individuals within a world can do with it. When the aim of a villain is to gain unlimited power, he ain't talking about limitations (whether of technology or magic).

[Roog]

Because I can imagine impossible things [i.e. not just amazing things, but outright impossible things].

So you think that technology can (potentialy) only do things that you can imagine?

[Matthew]

So you think that technology can (potentialy) only do things that you can imagine?

Hardly. I am saying that technology cannot do some of things I imagine in the ways I imagine them.

[Roog]

No it doesn't. You're confusing the actual potential of magic with what individuals within a world can do with it.

If magic can be used to create an self-inconsistent world, then we cannot discuss the self-inconsistent world that is created (because self-inconsistency makes all statements provably true). If we do not discuss the self-inconsistent worlds, then in effect we are discussing magic that is limited to the creation of self-consistent worlds.

[JaxGaret]

The view that magic occuring would prove it was possible and therefore no longer impossible. Magic is paradoxial.

How do you know if "magic" occurs? You don't, because it defies scientific proof. Therefore, anything that would be considered "magic" would either be identified as something else, or uncategorized.

So, even if magic happened, you wouldn't know it to be magic.

Yes, but that's rather the point. You seek to rationalise magic (if it were to exist) and place it into a scheme of the natural order of things. I am saying that is a valid view, but it's not the only one. Magic wouldn't be magic if it could be rationalised in the way you're describing (to me, anyway).

Exactly. It's not magic if it exists. Therefore, magic is impossible.

Yes, you're one of the folk that believes that theory. I reject that theory, but the point wasn't about one individual example of agreement/disagreement as to what is possible.

What are you talking about? Theories have no belief factor associated with them. It is a theory. It either will prove to be true, prove to be false, or simply be corroborated so many times empirically that it is assumed to be true. Those are the only three fates of theories.

Belief has nothing to do with it.

[Matthew]

How do you know if "magic" occurs? You don't, because it defies scientific proof. Therefore, anything that would be considered "magic" would either be identified as something else, or uncategorized.

So, even if magic happened, you wouldn't know it to be magic.

It's imaginery. Not actual. That's the point.

Exactly. It's not magic if it exists. Therefore, magic is impossible.

yes, that's right. Magic is impossible. If it were to occur it would still be impossible.

What are you talking about? Theories have no belief factor associated with them. It is a theory. It either will prove to be true, or prove to be false, or simply be corroborated so many times empirically that it is assumed to be true. Those are the only three fates of theories.

Belief has nothing to do with it.

I don't particularly want to derail the thread here, but theories are untested speculations. They may have good grounding in fact, but they are not true until proven to be true. If you believe that they will be proven to be true, that is a belief.

[Roog]

Hardly. I am saying that technology cannot do some of things I imagine in the ways I imagine them.

you said

There's no way that technology can do more than my imagination.

You agree that technology can do things that you can't imagine. You also say that you can imagine things technology cannot do. What makes one set larger than the other?