Do You Believe in Magic?

[Relique du Madde]

Remember, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

And sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No, I don't believe in magic or the supernatural.

I am sure that we don't know everything there is to know about the universe, but I am sure that it is possible to find a scientific theory for everything.

If I saw someone throwing a fireball or casting a charm person spell, I would believe in "magic", but I wouldn't believe it as being supernatural as in "outside of nature / not part of physics". But I don't believe anything like that ever happen, either.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Any insufficiently advanced technology is distinguishable from magic.

Though I think what would be more fitting to say is:
"Any insufficiently understood technology or phenomena is mistaken for magic".

 

[RangerWickett]

I prefer, "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."

But to me, magic is "influence or prediction of events by non-intuitive causality, often in violation of the laws of thermodynamics."

For instance, tossing bones to predict the weather is magic because the weather does not meaningfully influence the bones, or vice versa. Examining satellite images of the weather to predict the weather, however, is science.

Waving your hands, rubbing some sulfur and bat guano together, and creating a burst of flame 400 ft. away is magic because there is no direct line of incidence between the one action and the other. Laying down a cable that leads to a bunch of explosives, and then pressing a detonator to set off the explosives is science.

Telekinesis, magic. Magnetic levitation, science. This is an example of where the line blurs. Some science is non-intuitive, and requires understanding unseen forces. However, science relies on spending energy to create an effect, whereas magic often bypasses the whole energy requirement. A person just thinks really hard and something moves, as opposed to you having to plug in a lot of electricity for your magnet machine.

 

[Umbran]

So let's assume that "supernatural" is something that could never be explained scientifically, even if our knowledge of the physical world were perfect and infinite. Does that help?

As a scientist - no, it does not. You have stumbled into what a scientist might call an, "unfalsifiable hypothesis".

We are all aware of the basic form of the scientific method, yes? Form a hypothesis, create an experiment that tests some part of the hypothesis, run the experiment - if the results are consistent with the hypothesis, that is evidence the hypothesis is correct, if the results are not consistent with the hypothesis, we adjust the hypothesis to meet the experimental facts.

Here, we have a hypothesis, "Phenomenon X can never be explained by science." How, pray tell, am I supposed to be able to test that? There is no test you can construct that can say something will never, cannot ever happen. One would need complete knowledge of the future to be able to make such an assertion.

Science, in general, is not in the business of proving negatives - that's for mathematicians. A scientist can speak to what can or cannot be explained right now, but not to what might or might not be explainable in the future.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Waving your hands, rubbing some sulfur and bat guano together, and creating a burst of flame 400 ft. away is magic because there is no direct line of incidence between the one action and the other. Laying down a cable that leads to a bunch of explosives, and then pressing a detonator to set off the explosives is science.

If I wiggle my fingers and press some metal, rubber and alchemically treated oil together, a silvery box starts spouting arcane noise and blinks with weirdly coloured lights.

In other words, according to your definition, a remote is magic, because there's as much intuitive link between the TV and the remote as between the bat guano and the explosion.

I think this also demonstrates that "intuitive causality" changes with society, which means that your definition of magic is a social one, depending on the society and their views on causality.

The thermodynamics clause, however is better - if something is decreasing the entropy of the universe, I will be shocked.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The thermodynamics clause, however is better - if something is decreasing the entropy of the universe, I will be shocked.

Cheers, LT.

Of course, not all instances where magic is used in stories makes magic do that.

Hey, Discworld magicians seem to be pretty scientific in that regard.
Forcing a door open telekinetically is dangerous, because you're using your brain as leverage. If you're not careful, it might smash!

 

[Umbran]

The thermodynamics clause, however is better - if something is decreasing the entropy of the universe, I will be shocked.

That's all well and good, except for the fact that we are incapable of measuring the entropy of the universe as a whole - local entropy can be manipulated willy-nilly, so long as you dump the excess somewhere out of sight

 

[Samnell]

I don't even believe in the supernatural, of any kind.

 

[Knightfall]

I selected maybe because I like to keep an open mind, and I like to sit on the fence.