Magic = Science we don't understand--yet (a clear, cohesive & simple definition)
Ken from Chicago
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
The phrase is well-known in science fiction circles--especially fans of
written science fiction. The rub of course is what is "magic"?
Like so many terms, there's a general fuzzy popular conception of the term
with a whole host of connotations, feelings, preconceptions. However as it
related to genre fiction, I would like to add that
"Magic" separates traditional "Fantasy" from "Science Fiction".
As often "fantasy" and "science fiction" has been discussed and debated, the
difference between the two has been fuzzy to arbitrary or even nonexistant.
However I would argue to the vast public at large, if pressed, "magic" is
the key that divides genre fiction between fantasy and science fiction. If
there's magic then it's fantasy, if not, then it's science fiction.
Note I said "genre fiction", and by that I mean fiction with a "Wow" factor,
amazing stories, where the rules of science are pushed to the limit, perhaps
even bent, if not flat out broken. When that happens in a novel, movie or tv
show, then it's attributed to either some revolutionary application of
science or "magic".
But that leads us back to what is "magic" as it relates to genre fiction?
Now if you've read my previous posts on the subject, or simply the subject
header
Magic = Science we don't understand--yet
Ali Baba rides up to his secret hide and says "Open Sesame" and a hidden
doorway opens up in a rock wall. It's called "magic", but that's just
because we don't know how it was done. Whether a group of robbers wait on
the other side to hear the password and open the secret door or if some
mechanism responds to that combination of sound waves like some kind of
Arabian predecessor to The Clapper or if Ali is using the phrase to decoy
onlookers while he uses a garage door opener.
Well now you know my position. Is there a better definition as it relates
to genre fiction?
I tend to think not, however in writing this message and doing some research
in preparing to write this message (I've had this incomplete message open
for about a week now, only with the subject header, Clarke's 3rd law and the
signature line) and discover while my definition is good, there is a flaw,
but merely one of style, not of substance. Others may disagree, but we'll
get to that.
As it turns out, extensive research reveals the universe does not revolve
around me and other people have even dared to have their own
definitions--some of them that actually, gasp, differs from my own. Let's
look at four:
EXAMPLE ONE: Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
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 : ENCHANTMENT
3 : the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand
EXAMPLE TWO: American Heritage Dictionary:
1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or
forces by invoking the supernatural.
2.
a. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to
produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
3. The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.
4. A mysterious quality of enchantment: "For me the names of those men
breathed the magic of the past" (Max Beerbohm).
EXAMPLE THREE: Wikipedia:
[Magic (illusion)]
Magic, including the arts of prestidigitation and conjuring, is the art of
entertaining an audience by performing illusions that baffle and amaze,
often by giving the impression that something impossible has been achieved,
almost as if the performer had magic or supernatural powers. Yet, this
illusion of magic is created entirely by natural means. The practitioners of
this mystery art may be called magicians, conjurors, illusionists or
prestidigitators. Artists in other media such as theatre, cinema, dance and
the visual arts increasingly work using similar means but regard their
magical techniques as of secondary importance to the goal of creating a
complex cultural performance.
[Magic (paranormal)]
Magic and sorcery are the influencing of events, objects, people and
physical phenomena by mystical or paranormal means. The terms can also refer
to the practices employed by a person to wield this influence, and to
beliefs that explain various events and phenomena in such terms.
EXAMPLE FOUR: Encyclopedia Britannica:
a concept used to describe a mode of rationality or way of thinking that
looks to invisible forces to influence events, effect change in material
conditions, or present the illusion of change. Within the Western tradition,
this way of thinking is distinct from religious or scientific modes;
however, such distinctions and even the definition of magic are subject to
wide debate.
Aside from all four examples addressing magic as belief or illusion, the
other thing they had in common is that magic is related to the supernatural,
paranormal or the mystical, in short, in some way outside of the realm of
science. I would argue nothing is outside of science, we just may not
understand it (even if it's merely an illusion, cuz sometimes that is the
case).
The catch then becomes what is "science"?
Here then is the flaw in my definition:
Magic = Science we don't understand--yet.
And it's the number one reason I've found for debates, I'm defining the same
terms differently. In this case I'm using "science" ever so slightly
differently than most people think of "science". I suspect most people are
thinking of science somewhat narrowly, as quantifiable, measurable,
empirical and / or follows the CURRENT rules of physics in OUR
universe--with relatively minor deviation. The exception being aliens being
able to understand physics far beyond how we understand it, other than vague
references to new kinds of energy, matter and / or dimensions, as well as
extremely large, small and / or powerful technology.
However the way I'm using the "science" is a somewhat broader than the
common everyday Western usage. I'm referring to pert near any system of
measureable repeatable study of knowledge-acquisition and
phenomena-causation--aka information and action.
Science = A measureable repeateable method gaining knowledge and / or
causing actions.
If only one person gains the knowledge or causes the action is it
scientific? That depends on how much you trust the person in question. If
everyone is deaf except a few people, does that small group really hear or
are simply delusional? It's a matter of trust then. However if said small
group of people can share hearing aids that reveal a small sample of sound
without being able to explain how said hearing aids work, only that they
consistently enable one to hear sounds all around them of objects, animals
and people ... is that science of magic?
I would argue it's magic--to you--until you can understand the science.
If time travellers went back in time to the stone age with walkie talkies,
said walkie talkies would be magic to local populace until they understood
how the science behind it ... altho they might never understand.
Does their ignorance make the phones unscientific?
So too, does our lack of understanding of the specific scientific processes
behind what is traditionally labelled "magic" in genre fiction prevent said
"magic" from begin scientific?
What if belief is required? If belief can cause repeated gains in knowledge
or causes of action, then I would still argue it was a form of science since
it could be repeated. What if only one person can measure effects of such an
experiment? What if it were specifically written that "magic" required
various ingredients to perform spells that would otherwise have no effect?
If it has a measureable and repeatable effect? Still doesn't rule out the
"scientificness" of the experiment.
After all, how much of psychology is about subjective internal perceptions
and feelings of the patient? Ultimately only they know how they feel and
what they remember. They could be faking their testimony to the doctor. Here
again is where the trust factor comes in. Of course a fancy word for trust
is "belief". What if the science requires you to believe the patients in the
psychology experiments are telling the truth? Similar issue. Sure, some
patients (fancy word for human guinea pigs, but I prefer "patients") may
lie, but adjustments can be made to account for a certain percentage of
"inaccuracy".
If that doesn't rule out the science in the experiment then it doesn't rule
out the science in the "magic".
Of course, feel free to disagree.
For those who do disagree, might I ask for 3 counterexamples? I would make
this comment.
FIELDS OF SCIENCE.
Physics, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Psychology, Sociology, Political
Science, Anthropology, Macroeconomics, etc. just because some rules of one
field of science apply in one field, they might not all apply in another
area. And the precision you might get in the Natural fields of science might
not apply to the Social fields of science--and quite often "magic" is
depicted as affected by belief, thoughts, will, concentration, focus and
emotion . . . something more common in social sciences (aka the "soft"
sciences as opposed to natural sciences, the "hard" sciences).
Despite "soft" aspects of the social sciences they are still considered
science--just like "magic". The only difference with magic is that it is
simply a field of science we don't understand, at least not yet.
-- Ken from Chicago (who only now notes Charles Stross' Eschatons' "Third
Commandment" was the oft-quoted one--just like of Arthur C. Clarke's Three
Laws, it's the "Third Law" that's the oft-quoted one, coincidence?)
P.S. Any sufficiently advanced technology is magic--until we understand the
science behind it.
Michael Grosberg
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> Magic = Science we don't understand--yet
>
> Ali Baba rides up to his secret hide and says "Open Sesame" and a hidden
> doorway opens up in a rock wall. It's called "magic", but that's just
> because we don't know how it was done. Whether a group of robbers wait on
> the other side to hear the password and open the secret door or if some
> mechanism responds to that combination of sound waves like some kind of
> Arabian predecessor to The Clapper or if Ali is using the phrase to decoy
> onlookers while he uses a garage door opener.
This is where you are mistaken.
The whole point of "magic" is that there is _no_ mechanism. You say a
word, and the door opens, and that is it. You can wonder if there is a
mechanism there, but if the story states it was done by magic, then you
must assume there was none.
The best example of magic is the byblical creation story. God says "let
there be light" and there is light. There were no hordes of angels that
rushed out to create the light. There were no structures in god's brain
that could interact with spacetime to create light. There was just the
word, and then, light.
You have to realize that this is very different from science. The
science we know attempts to understend phenomena by breaing complex
system apart into smaller and easier to understand subcomponents. This
is how we discovered cells, elements, molecules and atoms, subatomic
particles and quarks. We formulate relations with math and numbers,
trying to figure out simple, basic rules of behavior.
now, you can imagine different sciences, in other universes, that
discover other particles and forces and other laws of physics. But it's
still not magic. Magic can't be broken apart into smaller bits, ever.
You do have cause and effect but it's a black box, input thought or
gesture or magic phrase and out comes the fireball. This is not some
thing you "don't understand yet" but something you can't, by
definition, ever understand.
Eric Walker
[...]
> But that leads us back to what is "magic" as it relates to genre fiction?
It's what science isn't. Science seeks to know the laws under which
the universe operates. "Law" implies regularity: do A, and B ensues.
Many on this forum are uncomfortable with the idea, but really, if
one--anyone--can wave one's hand in a certain way while pronouncing
certain syllables and thereby *reliably* turn a person into a frog,
that's science.
Why a magicostatic charge would be less "scientific" than an
electrostatic charge is unclear. The only difference is that we
believe one exists and don't believe the other exists; but science has
often believed in things later found false, and disbelieved things
later found true. Books that all except a certain hard core of
fanatics agree are science fiction regularly posit scientifically
determined laws that do not comport with the present state of our
scientific knowledge. Why are effective incantations, when literally
formulaic, less "scientific" than an FTL drive?
Magic is therefore that which is _ad hoc_, which does not follow
constraints that entail repeatable, determinate results. Put another
way, it is the direct action of arbitrary will on that which is. No
intermediary processes, no exchanges of magicons in the quantum flux,
just will.
Obviously, one can carry the concept of science to pathological limits,
and define away _all_ magic on the ground that "The law is that there
is no law", but the distinction ought to be clear in a commonsensical
way.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
Joe Bednorz
As Roger Zelazny put it in "Lord of Light": Science is the unknown.
Magic is the unknowable. (Or something like that, with bowing. Said by
Death in his Vasty Hall.)
--
SF at Project Gutenberg: <http://thethunderchild.com/Books/OutofCopyright.html>
Baen Free Online SciFi: <http://www.baen.com/library/>
Baen Free SciFi CDs <http://files.plebian.net/baencd/>
SciFi.com classic/original: <http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/archive.html>
Free SF samples from Baen and Tor: <http://www.webscription.net/catalog.asp>
More links: <http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
All the best, Joe Bednorz
Ken from Chicago
"Michael Grosberg" <grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161510499.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>> Magic = Science we don't understand--yet
>>
>> Ali Baba rides up to his secret hide and says "Open Sesame" and a hidden
>> doorway opens up in a rock wall. It's called "magic", but that's just
>> because we don't know how it was done. Whether a group of robbers wait on
>> the other side to hear the password and open the secret door or if some
>> mechanism responds to that combination of sound waves like some kind of
>> Arabian predecessor to The Clapper or if Ali is using the phrase to decoy
>> onlookers while he uses a garage door opener.
>
> This is where you are mistaken.
>
> The whole point of "magic" is that there is _no_ mechanism. You say a
> word, and the door opens, and that is it. You can wonder if there is a
> mechanism there, but if the story states it was done by magic, then you
> must assume there was none.
You mean like magic wands, flying carpets, flying brooms, magic staves,
voodoo dolls?
> The best example of magic is the byblical creation story. God says "let
> there be light" and there is light. There were no hordes of angels that
> rushed out to create the light. There were no structures in god's brain
> that could interact with spacetime to create light. There was just the
> word, and then, light.
Job 38: 1-7, and Colossians 1:1-15 would differ with that assessment.
> You have to realize that this is very different from science. The
> science we know attempts to understend phenomena by breaing complex
> system apart into smaller and easier to understand subcomponents. This
> is how we discovered cells, elements, molecules and atoms, subatomic
> particles and quarks. We formulate relations with math and numbers,
> trying to figure out simple, basic rules of behavior.
>
> now, you can imagine different sciences, in other universes, that
> discover other particles and forces and other laws of physics. But it's
> still not magic. Magic can't be broken apart into smaller bits, ever.
Depends on how it's depicted.
--Tolkien's One Ring has to actually be worn to turn someone invisible and
eventually gain mental dominion over everyone.
--Harry Potter's broom had to be sat upon or at least held for him to fly.
--Magic wands have to be held for fireballs, lightning or whatever sundry
effects they can cause to be sent forth.
--Some magic is depicted as being spoken, some performed with gestures, some
with merely thought, ala MERLIN, the NBC mini-series, starring Sam Neill in
the titular role.
--Some magic require not just speaking but speaking it backwards as DC
Comics's characters, Zatara and Zatana do.
--Some magic spells requires potions, ingredients, "eye of newt" arguably
the most famous in literature from the opening of Shakespeare's MACBETH; not
to mention voodoo dolls that look somewhat like the target and having some
part of said target, typically a lock of hair.
--Often magic is depicted as drawing on power from another, life force or
power of an extradimensional being, like a spirit, ghost, demon or
devil--which is why it tends to be, shall we say ... frowned upon, ... to
say the least, by Christianity.
> You do have cause and effect but it's a black box, input thought or
> gesture or magic phrase and out comes the fireball. This is not some
> thing you "don't understand yet" but something you can't, by
> definition, ever understand.
Regardless, even if said black box depiction was the only depiction, that
would still hold up as a form of science. Input X into function M and get
output Y. As long as the results were measurable and repeatable, that would
count.
It would be just as scientific as dialing an address on stargate and opening
a near-instantaneous portal to another planet.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Joe Bednorz" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:uuimj29fsfpmfk4lv...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Oct 2006 02:48:19 -0700, Michael Grosberg wrote:
<snip>
> As Roger Zelazny put it in "Lord of Light": Science is the unknown.
> Magic is the unknowable. (Or something like that, with bowing. Said by
> Death in his Vasty Hall.)
Ah, here now is where Clark's less-quoted laws come into play:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is
impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a
little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
How does one determine something is "impossible" or "unknowable"?
> --
> SF at Project Gutenberg:
> <http://thethunderchild.com/Books/OutofCopyright.html>
> Baen Free Online SciFi: <http://www.baen.com/library/>
> Baen Free SciFi CDs <http://files.plebian.net/baencd/>
> SciFi.com classic/original: <http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/archive.html>
> Free SF samples from Baen and Tor:
> <http://www.webscription.net/catalog.asp>
> More links: <http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
> All the best, Joe Bednorz
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Eric Walker" <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
news:1161511476.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> But that leads us back to what is "magic" as it relates to genre fiction?
>
> It's what science isn't. Science seeks to know the laws under which
> the universe operates. "Law" implies regularity: do A, and B ensues.
> Many on this forum are uncomfortable with the idea, but really, if
> one--anyone--can wave one's hand in a certain way while pronouncing
> certain syllables and thereby *reliably* turn a person into a frog,
> that's science.
At first it seems like we agree.
> Why a magicostatic charge would be less "scientific" than an
> electrostatic charge is unclear. The only difference is that we
> believe one exists and don't believe the other exists; but science has
> often believed in things later found false, and disbelieved things
> later found true. Books that all except a certain hard core of
> fanatics agree are science fiction regularly posit scientifically
> determined laws that do not comport with the present state of our
> scientific knowledge. Why are effective incantations, when literally
> formulaic, less "scientific" than an FTL drive?
This would seem to support that agreement.
> Magic is therefore that which is _ad hoc_, which does not follow
> constraints that entail repeatable, determinate results. Put another
> way, it is the direct action of arbitrary will on that which is. No
> intermediary processes, no exchanges of magicons in the quantum flux,
> just will.
Now I'm confused if you are agreeing or not. It seems like you're not, but
if said "arbitrary" application of will produces measurable and repeatable
results that would qualify as a form or field of science.
> Obviously, one can carry the concept of science to pathological limits,
> and define away _all_ magic on the ground that "The law is that there
> is no law", but the distinction ought to be clear in a commonsensical
> way.
This part I'm unclear about what is meant.
> --
> Cordially,
> Eric Walker, webmaster
> Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
-- Ken from Chicago
Michael Grosberg
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> How does one determine something is "impossible" or "unknowable"?
You don't. The writer of the work in question does. If the writer says
it's magic, and goes no further, then it's magic of the "unknowable"
type. If a mechanism is described, as in _Perdido Street Station_
(where magic works by way of thaumaturgon particles and according to
the laws of crisis theory), then you can treat it as
indistinguishable-from-magic science.
Now, if we encounter magic in the real world, that's another question,
which, by the way, I suspect is not going to arise anytime soon.
George Peatty
>The best example of magic is the byblical creation story. God says "let
>there be light" and there is light. There were no hordes of angels that
>rushed out to create the light. There were no structures in god's brain
>that could interact with spacetime to create light. There was just the
>word, and then, light.
There is a difference between magic and miracle. We are far from insightful
enough to say with certainty what processes operated in the Divine Mind at
the moment of creation. What your statement does not address, because it
cannot, is the theological consideration that God is sovereign over
creation, and it is that sovereignty that forms the mechanism for
interacting with that creation.
Howard Brazee
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Magic = Science we don't understand--yet
>
>Ali Baba rides up to his secret hide and says "Open Sesame" and a hidden
>doorway opens up in a rock wall. It's called "magic", but that's just
>because we don't know how it was done. Whether a group of robbers wait on
>the other side to hear the password and open the secret door or if some
>mechanism responds to that combination of sound waves like some kind of
>Arabian predecessor to The Clapper or if Ali is using the phrase to decoy
>onlookers while he uses a garage door opener.
>
>Well now you know my position. Is there a better definition as it relates
>to genre fiction?
Fantasy writes about magic as supernatural. SF writes about many of
the same results as natural.
Your definition of magic is outside of the norm. Sometimes someone
will mistake science for magic, but that doesn't make it so.
Howard Brazee
<grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The best example of magic is the byblical creation story. God says "let
>there be light" and there is light. There were no hordes of angels that
>rushed out to create the light. There were no structures in god's brain
>that could interact with spacetime to create light. There was just the
>word, and then, light.
I do remember a fairy tale where someone wishes that the old man would
build him a palace. The old man does so instantly and mentions how
many thousand shoes he wore out doing the work.
Howard Brazee
<peattyg...@copper.net> wrote:
>There is a difference between magic and miracle.
Magic is the impossible belief that has nothing to do with religion.
Religion is the impossible belief that our religion says is true.
David Johnston
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Arthur C. Clarke states in his widely quoted "Third Law":
>
>Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
>
>The phrase is well-known in science fiction circles--especially fans of
>written science fiction. The rub of course is what is "magic"?
Whatever the person speaking wants it to be. No, seriously. For some
authors, magic is the invocation of intangible beings to use their
powers on your behalf. For others, magic is comic-book superpowers
that a small proportion of the population possesses. For Tolkien,
magic was Divine Essence, misused by former servants of God who took
to using God's gift for their personal purposes. For others, magic is
speaking the right words and making the right gestures to input
programming code into the universe as a vast computer. And whether
magic is amenable to scientific dissection and to what extent is also
a choice of the author.
Steven L.
> Arthur C. Clarke states in his widely quoted "Third Law":
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
>
> The phrase is well-known in science fiction circles--especially fans of
> written science fiction. The rub of course is what is "magic"?
You could ask. :-)
Arthur Clarke realized later on that there was a counter to his
statement: Whoever developed the power knows whether it's engineered or
magical. Something like FTL travel or the transporter from Star Trek
might be considered "magical" *to us*--but we could see that there were
savants who knew how they worked and that they were scientists, not
magicians. On Star Trek, Scotty was portrayed as an engineer with a
technical background, not a sorcerer. And given enough time, Scotty
could teach us how those devices worked.
So the idea that advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
might be true for those who are affected by the thing. But not for
those who developed it and learned how to use it. They know the truth
behind it.
What does this mean for science fiction vs. fantasy? When a new and
bizarre concept is presented (whether it's invisibility or mind reading
or precognition), there has to be enough of a hint given that ultimately
it is based on scientific principles and the scientific method. The
simplest way is to just have it be wielded by characters who are
engineers, scientists, or trained technicians. Even if they don't
explain the details of how it's done.
It makes all the difference in the world if a scene involving
mind-reading shows the mind-reading being done by a neuropsychiatrist
with advanced scientific equipment, rather than by a fortune teller.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Wayne Throop
: Magic = Science we don't understand--yet [...]
: Is there a better definition as it relates to genre fiction?
Yes. Magic is a set of tropes involving symbol manipulation, dwim,
and analogic causation, and the such, in a background that lacks tropes
involving machines, chrome, reductionism, mechanical causality, and the such.
Of course authors, being contrary cusses, often try to blur these issues.
Lord of Light, Star Wars, and even Steerswomen, are examples.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wayne Throop
: Arthur Clarke realized later on that there was a counter to his
: magical. Something like FTL travel or the transporter from Star Trek
: might be considered "magical" *to us*--but we could see that there were
: savants who knew how they worked and that they were scientists, not
: magicians.
Do you have a cite where Clarke published these relizations?
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Whatever the person speaking wants it to be. No, seriously. For some
>authors, magic is the invocation of intangible beings to use their
>powers on your behalf. For others, magic is comic-book superpowers
>that a small proportion of the population possesses. For Tolkien,
>magic was Divine Essence, misused by former servants of God who took
>to using God's gift for their personal purposes. For others, magic is
>speaking the right words and making the right gestures to input
>programming code into the universe as a vast computer. And whether
>magic is amenable to scientific dissection and to what extent is also
>a choice of the author.
I suppose an author can use the word "green" to describe what the rest
of us think of as "red". If the readers buy it, it works.
Ken from Chicago
"David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote in message
news:hd8nj2dtfml4535r8...@4ax.com...
Yep. It's depicted as subject to varying degrees of analysis and
consistancy.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:d9O_g.10891$Lv3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> Arthur C. Clarke states in his widely quoted "Third Law":
>>
>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
>>
>> The phrase is well-known in science fiction circles--especially fans of
>> written science fiction. The rub of course is what is "magic"?
>
> You could ask. :-)
>
> Arthur Clarke realized later on that there was a counter to his statement:
> Whoever developed the power knows whether it's engineered or magical.
> Something like FTL travel or the transporter from Star Trek might be
> considered "magical" *to us*--but we could see that there were savants who
> knew how they worked and that they were scientists, not magicians. On
> Star Trek, Scotty was portrayed as an engineer with a technical
> background, not a sorcerer. And given enough time, Scotty could teach us
> how those devices worked.
>
> So the idea that advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic might
> be true for those who are affected by the thing. But not for those who
> developed it and learned how to use it. They know the truth behind it.
>
> What does this mean for science fiction vs. fantasy? When a new and
> bizarre concept is presented (whether it's invisibility or mind reading or
> precognition), there has to be enough of a hint given that ultimately it
> is based on scientific principles and the scientific method. The simplest
> way is to just have it be wielded by characters who are engineers,
> scientists, or trained technicians. Even if they don't explain the
> details of how it's done.
For example how well users EXTRAPOLATE a standard use into something more
esoteric, for example using a wand of fire ball blasting to propell a raft
as if it's jet thrust.
> It makes all the difference in the world if a scene involving mind-reading
> shows the mind-reading being done by a neuropsychiatrist with advanced
> scientific equipment, rather than by a fortune teller.
Unless it's Christopher Walken disgusing a brainstorm memory recorder as a
hat and then using it to read someone's brain.
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:11615...@sheol.org...
Sorry, I haven't heard of these authors. >=^>
Authors are artists and like to push the limits at times.
-- Ken from Chicago
Gene Ward Smith
Not an apt analogy. If an author says roses are green, violets are blue
then we assume roses are really green, and picture green roses. If an
author says the healing was by a magical potion, or instead says by a
super-science potion, we think in both cases of healing. But we accept
the characterization of the healing because (unless the author is
pulling a fast one and we are going to be hit with the old
magic-as-technology gag down the road) we have no other basis for
characterizing it. It's the author's universe.
How clearly defined the rules are makes no difference to whether
something is magic or tech. Stories written to AD&D rules have some
very specific parameters telling us how to get magic to work and what
effects it can produce. That does not make it tech, though depending on
the story it can function like tech. Why? Because the rules say it's
magic.
This suggests to me that the only reason we don't have magic in the
real world is the lack of an author claiming that we do. It's
tautological. People who like science fiction, even when the science is
bad, but don't like fantasy dislike having the author say something is
magic. This is why the feverish attempts by those people to prove
science fiction is realistically scientific make no sense.
Eric Walker
> "Eric Walker" <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
>
[...]
> >
> > Magic is therefore that which is _ad hoc_, which does not follow
> > constraints that entail repeatable, determinate results. Put another
> > way, it is the direct action of arbitrary will on that which is. No
> > intermediary processes, no exchanges of magicons in the quantum flux,
> > just will.
>
> Now I'm confused if you are agreeing or not. It seems like you're not, but
> if said "arbitrary" application of will produces measurable and repeatable
> results that would qualify as a form or field of science.
The explanation goes hand in hand with this next part:
> > Obviously, one can carry the concept of science to pathological limits,
> > and define away _all_ magic on the ground that "The law is that there
> > is no law", but the distinction ought to be clear in a commonsensical
> > way.
"Arbitrary" means that there are no restrictions whatever (save,
perhaps in the realm of paradox). The being that is doing the willing
is not constrained in any way (with the same reservation) by any
"law"--there is no "this is possible and that is not", or "this is
required for that".
But we could, in this way, define away "arbitrary will" as being yet
more "science" by stating that "whatever this being wills becomes so,
with no restraint" is a "law". The point is that we need to take care
with what we mean by "law" lest we end up in a semantic quagmire.
Likewise, the only being whose *every* willing becomes so is God, whom
we do not ordinarily consider a "magician" in the fantasy sense. So it
follows that lesser beings with magical powers would have some
constraints on their abilities to directly affect that which is; if we
are careless, we might say that there are "laws" that "regulate" their
magic, but that once again utterly defines away magic altogether. We
must needs consider restrictions on scope to not be "laws" in the same
sense we mean that word when referring to the laws of science; that is
plausible, because a law is generally of the form "if this, then that".
Mind, that issue of restrictions on "arbitrary" will, if followed
carefully, tends very much to end up requiring a Supreme Being, else
what limits the scope of a power that can act arbitrarily to impose its
will directly on that which is? I don't recall seeing any works that
pursue that question--"Does the existence of true, non-science magic
mandate the existence of God?"--but it looks to me like a fruitful
avenue for fictive speculations.
David Johnston
wrote:
>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>> "Eric Walker" <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
>>
>[...]
>> >
>> > Magic is therefore that which is _ad hoc_, which does not follow
>> > constraints that entail repeatable, determinate results. Put another
>> > way, it is the direct action of arbitrary will on that which is. No
>> > intermediary processes, no exchanges of magicons in the quantum flux,
>> > just will.
>>
>> Now I'm confused if you are agreeing or not. It seems like you're not, but
>> if said "arbitrary" application of will produces measurable and repeatable
>> results that would qualify as a form or field of science.
>
>The explanation goes hand in hand with this next part:
>
>> > Obviously, one can carry the concept of science to pathological limits,
>> > and define away _all_ magic on the ground that "The law is that there
>> > is no law", but the distinction ought to be clear in a commonsensical
>> > way.
>
>"Arbitrary" means that there are no restrictions whatever
No. It just means the restrictions, if any, have no underlying logic.
Michael Grosberg
I just ran into a similar discussion on some other board, which started
by discussing McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_. Can someone remind me whether
there were any cientific sounding explanations of the dragons' origin
and abilities in the first book? I know that _Dragonsdawn_ detailed
their origin as genetically manipulated beings, I just don't remember
what was in the original book.
David Johnston
<grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
It was vaguely hinted at. It was also made clear that this was a
lost colony.
Ken from Chicago
Yeah, I gotta agree with David. That's my take on the phrase "arbitrary".
TALES OF THE GREEN LANTERN CORPS had a similar concept where a member of the
GLC tried to stop time or something and the ring informed him he wasn't
capable of that level of willpower.
The Dresden Files has a similar deal with the lead character, Harry Dresden,
noting how a lot of his magic is empowered by his will, like magic circles
that can trap summoned creatures have limits based on the will of the
summoner. While the circle can keep any summoned creature in (provided no
one from outside breaks the circle)--it has an inherent limit based on the
willpower of the summoner and if said creature can just overwhelm the will
(typically causing feedback leading to a massive headache) they can break
out.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161547648.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Exactly, the difference is merely arbitrary labels.
> This suggests to me that the only reason we don't have magic in the
> real world is the lack of an author claiming that we do. It's
> tautological. People who like science fiction, even when the science is
> bad, but don't like fantasy dislike having the author say something is
> magic. This is why the feverish attempts by those people to prove
> science fiction is realistically scientific make no sense.
That's often when scifi breaks one rule of science, but then other rules of
science aren't applied consistantly. Like someone drinks a potion and turns
invisible, after stripping off their visible clothes they trail
someone--into a crowded elevator, despite the fact while invisible they are
still solid, yet no one notices. Superman may be strong enough to lift a
car, but picking one up by the front bumper should result in the bumper
tearing off.
In good science fiction, while one rule of science may be bent, the other
rules still apply--unless explicitly explained why.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons_(Pern)
-- Ken from Chicago
Eric Walker
> : "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net>
> : Magic = Science we don't understand--yet [...]
> : Is there a better definition as it relates to genre fiction?
>
> Yes. Magic is a set of tropes involving symbol manipulation, dwim,
> and analogic causation, and the such, in a background that lacks tropes
> involving machines, chrome, reductionism, mechanical causality, and the such.
That is an admirably succinct and unexceptionable answer to the
question *as posed*: "a better definition _as it relates to genre
fiction_". Probably the only shorter form possible is "science fiction
and fantasy books are distinguished by which label their publishers put
on their cover."
But once beyond publishing categories, the question of whether regular
("rule-following") magic is or is not an oxymoron goes beyond a
fixation on taxonomy. If the author is being careful and not just
trying to spread out a wild and colorful "wonder story"--sort of like a
western movie where the scenery and the gunfights are the chief
attractions--there is some meaningful difference involved in how
characters interact with each other and their world when that world is
one of law and regularity as opposed to one where whim can have power.
A world with "regular magic" would be, to its inhabitants, a world not
much if at all different from our own. Whether it is that any two-bit
punk in the street can at whim shoot you dead with an artifact of
science or can at whim spell you dead with an artifact of "magic" makes
little difference to the quality and nature of life.
Consider that if "regular magic" exists it will develop and exfoliate
in quite the same way as science has in our world, exactly because it
would *be* a part of the science of that world. Its powers would be as
available to anyone as are the powers of science in our world. Some
might be apter at designing, as some are apter at science and
engineering, but the civilization has to end up much the same.
The only way of avoiding that deadly similarity is some clunky and
visibly artificial auctorial restriction, some relatively rare "magical
aptitude" that ignores all of Charles Darwin's work (if a force
susceptible of biological use exists, evolution will favor those who
can use it; by the time a substantial civilization develops, the trait
would be near-universal--in fact, come to think on it, most life forms
would probably be using it, too, just as most use light to sense their
environment).
When persons or other beings can uniquely affect people and the world
by will alone, that world is one quite different from ours. But to try
to fake up such a world by positing first "regular magic" then
ridiculous restrictions on its availability is, to my mind, bad
writing. And about the only remedy--unless the author has a special
purpose in showing a world of "magical science" (as in the Harold Shea
stories)--is to grasp the true nature of magic and avoid constructing
silly "rule-following magic" worlds.
Ken from Chicago
"Regular magic".
That is a genius summarization of what it took me 11k of text of struggling
to describe. The average person might carry around rabbit feet, garlic,
catch the local flying carpet or portal into work, work in an assembly line
cranking out flying sailships, heating their lunch with tiny fireball, maybe
chatting with loved ones with scrying crystals, which has a cool new
ringtone enchantment.
> The only way of avoiding that deadly similarity is some clunky and
> visibly artificial auctorial restriction, some relatively rare "magical
> aptitude" that ignores all of Charles Darwin's work (if a force
> susceptible of biological use exists, evolution will favor those who
> can use it; by the time a substantial civilization develops, the trait
> would be near-universal--in fact, come to think on it, most life forms
> would probably be using it, too, just as most use light to sense their
> environment).
It could be that the gene for magic use is rare or the ability to use
powerful magic is rare. The average person could do a tiny light spell or
but it's the rare talent that can generate a fireball much less a firestorm.
> When persons or other beings can uniquely affect people and the world
> by will alone, that world is one quite different from ours. But to try
> to fake up such a world by positing first "regular magic" then
> ridiculous restrictions on its availability is, to my mind, bad
> writing. And about the only remedy--unless the author has a special
> purpose in showing a world of "magical science" (as in the Harold Shea
> stories)--is to grasp the true nature of magic and avoid constructing
> silly "rule-following magic" worlds.
Such a world would have existed a long time ago? in a galaxy far away?
-- Ken from Chicago
Bill Snyder
wrote:
a) "Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from
technology."
b) "[Chuang Tzu] had a disciple who spent seven years studying
universal energy and then demonstrated his wisdom by walking across
the surface of a river and back again, and Chuang Tzu broke into
tears. 'Oh, my boy!' he sobbed. 'My poor, poor, boy! You spent seven
years of your life learning to do that, and all the while old Meng has
been running a ferry not two miles from here, and he only charges two
copper coins.'" - _The Story of the Stone_
c) Tangentially, see also the SF story in which the psionically gifted
_homo superiors_ are fleeing from Earth, leaving the hopeless
_sapiens_ to wallow in futility, when they encounter a commuter in the
interstellar void . . .
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Taki Kogoma
The original short story "Weyr Search" has the 'lost colony' intro
that mentioned genetic manupulation of indigenous Pernese fauna to
create the dragons. Said intro moved into _Dragonflight_.
Gym "Of course, those draconic abilities get handwaved into Science
Fiction via the Psionics door, so one can now start the next
incarnation of the 'Psi = Magic?' argument." Quirk
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
David Johnston
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The only way of avoiding that deadly similarity is some clunky and
>> visibly artificial auctorial restriction, some relatively rare "magical
>> aptitude" that ignores all of Charles Darwin's work (if a force
>> susceptible of biological use exists, evolution will favor those who
>> can use it; by the time a substantial civilization develops, the trait
>> would be near-universal--in fact, come to think on it, most life forms
>> would probably be using it, too, just as most use light to sense their
>> environment).
>
>It could be that the gene for magic use is rare or the ability to use
>powerful magic is rare. The average person could do a tiny light spell or
>but it's the rare talent that can generate a fireball much less a firestorm.
Or more to the point it could be that the ability to conjure a
firestorm, or even a fireball is extremely hazardous to your own
health which is more to the point. However, he's overlooked more than
a few alternatives. Magical "aptitude" after all need not be the
product of genetics. It can be the results of say...pacts with the
Devil. Or fetal exposure to invisible "flows" of energy. Or a decade
or two of meditation. Or divine grace.
William December Starr
"Michael Grosberg" <grosberg...@gmail.com> said:
> The whole point of "magic" is that there is _no_ mechanism. You
> say a word, and the door opens, and that is it. You can wonder if
> there is a mechanism there, but if the story states it was done by
> magic, then you must assume there was none.
Where are you getting this from?
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> said:
> b) "[Chuang Tzu] had a disciple who spent seven years studying
> universal energy and then demonstrated his wisdom by walking
> across the surface of a river and back again, and Chuang Tzu broke
> into tears. 'Oh, my boy!' he sobbed. 'My poor, poor, boy! You
> spent seven years of your life learning to do that, and all the
> while old Meng has been running a ferry not two miles from here,
> and he only charges two copper coins.'" - _The Story of the
> Stone_
And then the disciple said "No, you idiot, I spent seven years
learning how to do damn near _anything_," and then he flew away,
dumping eight thousand gallons of river water -- and two copper
coins -- on old Chuang Tzu just to make a point.
William December Starr
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
> Yes. Magic is a set of tropes involving symbol manipulation,
> dwim, and analogic causation, and the such, in a background that
> lacks tropes involving machines, chrome, reductionism, mechanical
> causality, and the such.
Dwim? [*]
Taki Kogoma
allegedly declared to rec.arts.sf.written...
>In article <11615...@sheol.org>,
>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
>> Yes. Magic is a set of tropes involving symbol manipulation,
>> dwim, and analogic causation, and the such, in a background that
>> lacks tropes involving machines, chrome, reductionism, mechanical
>> causality, and the such.
>
>Dwim? [*]
"Do What I Mean" I expect.
William December Starr
qu...@swcp.com (Taki Kogoma) said:
> On 22 Oct 2006 21:26:02 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
> Starr) allegedly declared to rec.arts.sf.written...
>
>> In article <11615...@sheol.org>,
>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
>>
>>> Yes. Magic is a set of tropes involving symbol manipulation,
>>> dwim, and analogic causation, and the such, in a background that
>>> lacks tropes involving machines, chrome, reductionism, mechanical
>>> causality, and the such.
>>
>> Dwim? [*]
>
> "Do What I Mean" I expect.
Ah, thanks. The lack of all-uppercasing threw me off of even
thinking in terms acronymical.
("Joan was quizzical; studied acronymical / Science in the home...")
Howard Brazee
definition. Now it's technology. If supernatural was part of
nature, it wouldn't be supernatural anymore.
norrin
George Peatty wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2006 02:48:19 -0700, "Michael Grosberg"
> <grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The best example of magic is the byblical creation story. God says "let
> >there be light" and there is light. There were no hordes of angels that
> >rushed out to create the light. There were no structures in god's brain
> >that could interact with spacetime to create light. There was just the
> >word, and then, light.
>
> There is a difference between magic and miracle. We are far from insightful
> enough to say with certainty what processes operated in the Divine Mind at
> the moment of creation. What your statement does not address, because it
> cannot, is the theological consideration that God is sovereign over
> creation, and it is that sovereignty that forms the mechanism for
> interacting with that creation.
When God does something, it's a miracle. When the servants of
the other guy do the same thing, it's magic aka witchcraft. How
is it that magic works if God is sovereign? The tools to use it
came from the secret police of heaven.
norrin
David Johnston wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 03:09:03 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Arthur C. Clarke states in his widely quoted "Third Law":
> >
> >Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
> >
> >The phrase is well-known in science fiction circles--especially fans of
> >written science fiction. The rub of course is what is "magic"?
>
> Whatever the person speaking wants it to be.
Correct. Could you explain to me, how is that different from
science fiction?
norrin
Wayne Throop wrote:
> : "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net>
> : Magic = Science we don't understand--yet [...]
> : Is there a better definition as it relates to genre fiction?
>
> and analogic causation, and the such, in a background that lacks tropes
> involving machines, chrome, reductionism, mechanical causality, and the such.
So to you, a flying carpet is magic but a flying cadillac is not.
> Of course authors, being contrary cusses, often try to blur these issues.
> Lord of Light, Star Wars, and even Steerswomen, are examples.
But they can't fool you, can they?
norrin
A story can duplicate some features of this world and not
others. Why should the definition of magic within the context
of a story be the same as it is outside of the story?
Wayne Throop
: c) Tangentially, see also the SF story in which the psionically gifted
: _homo superiors_ are fleeing from Earth, leaving the hopeless
: _sapiens_ to wallow in futility, when they encounter a commuter in the
: interstellar void . . .
Heh. Indeed, one of my favorite memes. The name and author of which
continually slips from my mind, though the story does not. Sigh.
Wayne Throop
: But once beyond publishing categories, the question of whether regular
: ("rule-following") magic is or is not an oxymoron goes beyond a
: fixation on taxonomy.
Right. And my perspective there is that the basic distinction is based
on what the primitive operations of the universe are. Realizing that
there are inevitable ambiguities, I think magic is when some method or
effect is based on primitive-operations-of-the-universe that are symbolic,
AI-hard, or DWIM.
: Consider that if "regular magic" exists it will develop and exfoliate
: in quite the same way as science has in our world, exactly because it
: would *be* a part of the science of that world.
Yes, exactly. And that is among the reasons I think "magic is just
stuff we don't undersand yet" is a far less useful categorization.
Even if we understand it completely, if you alter a map and the symbolic
relationship to the territory causes the territory to change Just Because
The Universe Works Like That Undecomposably, it's magic.
You still have a bit of "magic is in the eye of the understander" problem,
but in a far less severe form, and the general notion is more useful.
David Johnston
Certainly. Science fiction is a genre of fiction. Magic on the other
hand, is a word used to describe a wide variety of abilities and
phenomena. It is not a genre of fiction.
David Johnston
wrote:
>If magic was shown to work, it wouldn't be magic anymore - by
>definition.
Tthat isn't the definition of magic.
Wayne Throop
::: analogic causation, and the such
:: Dwim? [*]
: qu...@swcp.com (Taki Kogoma)
: "Do What I Mean" I expect.
Ya. The example I've used before being "poof, you're a frog".
If that's a primitive operation built into the universe [1],
then it's very very dwim.
[1] "built into the universe" like the background of http://www.misfile.com/
where a clerical error made by a pot-smoking angel has the effect of
"poof, you're a girl" on a youngish person of the male persuasion.
Both dwim and symbolic. And, interestingly enough, gets a
reductionistic, nigh-technological handwave, which is amusing and
illustrates some of the difficulties with my point of view.
http://www.misfile.com/?page=16
Hm. Come to think of it, that's yafiygi, maybe not dwim or wysiwyg.
But maybe it can be both, or (with an appropriate gui) all three.
So the "wim" part is the file, not the codes, which are yafiygi.
Depends on what you analogize to what. Well then. There you go.
Wayne Throop
:: and analogic causation, and the such, in a background that lacks
:: tropes involving machines, chrome, reductionism, mechanical
:: causality, and the such.
: "norrin" <adwe...@hotmail.com>
: So to you, a flying carpet is magic but a flying cadillac is not.
No, that doesn't follow. It would depend on how you got the
carpet, or the cadillac, to fly. If you get the cadillac to fly
by sprinkling it with dew, realizing that this will by contagion
allow the cadillac to aquire the symbolic property of dew returning
to the heavens, then it's magic. If you got the carpet to fly by
weaving superconducting cables and electronics into it that
interacted with the road... then it's not magic.
"How will their pantheistic beliefs affect how they treat us now?"
"They are not pantheists, they are primitive animists."
"What's the difference?"
"Well, if they were primtive animists, they would take what happened
here as the spirit of Angelsou inhabiting that coke bottle which was
a focal point of the disturbance to their ceremony, and they
might put it on a shrine to share in its power. But if they were
pantheists, they might think that your interference has brought about
the disfavor of Angelsou, and so they might take the coke bottle,
in the role of a symbol for the god, and ritually strike you with
it to re-enact the disturbance until they crush your skull, which
they would then grind to powder for use in spells. Then they'd dump
our bodies off the end of the pier as an offering to appease
the sea god."
"Oh. I see. Yes, they look like primitive animists to me now, too."
--- Cort Myshtigo and Conrad Nomikos
( Need I say that both pantheism and primitive animism are magic,
and if they were used to loft a cadillac.... well. There you are. )
Well now way back in the Bible
Temptations always come along
There's always somebody tempting
Someone into doing something they know is wrong
Well they tempt you, man, with silver
And they tempt you, sir, with gold
And they tempt you with the pleasures
That the flesh doth surely hold
They say Eve tempted Adam with an apple,
But man I ain't goin' for that
I know it was her pink Cadillac, crushed velvet seats
Riding in the back, oozing down the street
Waving to the girls, feeling out of sight
Spending all my money on a Saturday night
Honey I just wonder what it feels like in the back
Of your pink Cadillac
--- Bruce Springsteen
Joseph Nebus
> Hm. Come to think of it, that's yafiygi, maybe not dwim or wysiwyg.
> But maybe it can be both, or (with an appropriate gui) all three.
> So the "wim" part is the file, not the codes, which are yafiygi.
> Depends on what you analogize to what. Well then. There you go.
But the important thing is that we understand what's being
described.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
norrin
A book is a genre because, if I'm not being presumptuous here,
someone has labeled it as such on the spine or on the cover. Can
I assume that the publisher wanted it to be a correct designater?
Therefore, science fiction is what the writer wants it to be.
Wayne Throop
:: the "wim" part is the file, not the codes, which are yafiygi.
:: Depends on what you analogize to what. Well then. There you go.
: nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus)
: But the important thing is that we understand what's being described.
I'm not sure if you mean "the important thing in categorizing something
as magic in a work of fiction is whether we the readers understand
the mechanisms, and if we do it's science, and if we don't it's magic",
but if so then I disagree.
If you mean "the important thing in categorizing something as magic in
a work of fiction is whether the characters in the story understand the
mechanisms, and if they do it's science, and if they don't it's magic",
then I also disagree.
On the other hand, if you mean "the important thing in categorizing
something as magic in a work of fiction is whether we the readers
understand the nature of the actual underlying rules the author intends
for the fictional setting", then I agree.
Joseph Nebus
>:: Hm. Come to think of it, that's yafiygi, maybe not dwim or wysiwyg.
>:: But maybe it can be both, or (with an appropriate gui) all three. So
>:: the "wim" part is the file, not the codes, which are yafiygi.
>:: Depends on what you analogize to what. Well then. There you go.
>: nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus)
>: But the important thing is that we understand what's being described.
>I'm not sure if you mean "the important thing in categorizing something
>as magic in a work of fiction is whether we the readers understand
>the mechanisms, and if we do it's science, and if we don't it's magic",
>but if so then I disagree.
No, I just mean that between `yafiygi', `dwim', `wysiwyg', `gui',
and I'm not sure there's more in there I'm overlooking there's enough
acronyms to risk compressing a paragraph beyond comprehension.
(I'm getting harder on acronyms as I age, to the point I'm not
sure I shouldn't define just what I mean by US, UK, NASA, or NBC on the
first use per composition.)
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Throop
: No, I just mean that between `yafiygi', `dwim', `wysiwyg', `gui',
: acronyms to risk compressing a paragraph beyond comprehension.
Oh at the META-level. Ah. Well, fwiw
yafiygi You Asked For It You Got It
dwim Do What I Mean
wysiwyg What You See Is What You Get
gui Graphical User Interface
Of particular interest, yafiygi and wysiwyg reference a traditional
duality. And gui is associated with wysiwyg, and cli with yafiygi,
though they aren't inextricably tied together. Or maybe they are magical
incantations in the True Language, I'm not sure....
Um, awright awright, cli=CommandLineInterface, fwiw="ForWhatIt'sWorth".
Eric Walker
[...]
> However, he's overlooked more than
> a few alternatives. Magical "aptitude" after all need not be the
> product of genetics. It can be the results of say...pacts with the
> Devil. Or fetal exposure to invisible "flows" of energy. Or a decade
> or two of meditation. Or divine grace.
None of which are exempt from evolutionary processes. Making a result
indirect affects nothing: those capable of or prone to do such things
will be more likely than others to leave like-inclined or like-talented
descendents.
Gene Ward Smith
Eric Walker wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
Nah. A decade of meditation only works for celibate monks. Satan makes
sure to screw anyone foolish enough to make a pact with him, and God
punishes unto the third and fourth generation any offsping which
somehow get by Satan. Fetal exposure sounds good, but any resulting
children are no longer human, and too tender of sensibilities to abide
long in this cruel world. Divine grace is only rarely handed out to the
non-celibate.
This should be obvious--otherwise, we'd be overrun with magical humans.
Ken from Chicago
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:dc9oj2p99985iusbs...@4ax.com...
> If magic was shown to work, it wouldn't be magic anymore - by
> definition. Now it's technology. If supernatural was part of
> nature, it wouldn't be supernatural anymore.
What is supernatural?
What COULD be supernatural?
There are things that are artificial but supernatural? Impossible. It would
just mean our definition of "natural" was too narrow.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ehh5na$b1k$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Do What I Mean.
The last stop after Do What I Say.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:11615...@sheol.org...
> :: Yes. Magic is a set of tropes involving symbol manipulation, dwim,
> :: and analogic causation, and the such, in a background that lacks
> :: tropes involving machines, chrome, reductionism, mechanical
> :: causality, and the such.
>
> : "norrin" <adwe...@hotmail.com>
> : So to you, a flying carpet is magic but a flying cadillac is not.
>
> No, that doesn't follow. It would depend on how you got the
> carpet, or the cadillac, to fly. If you get the cadillac to fly
> by sprinkling it with dew, realizing that this will by contagion
> allow the cadillac to aquire the symbolic property of dew returning
> to the heavens, then it's magic. If you got the carpet to fly by
> weaving superconducting cables and electronics into it that
> interacted with the road... then it's not magic.
It would me the physics in that universe allowed for symbolic properties of
dew returning to heaven to be shared to other objects the same as magnetic
properties of a magnetized metal can be shared to non-magnetized metal. We
would consider it a normal part of the universe.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> : No, I just mean that between `yafiygi', `dwim', `wysiwyg', `gui',
> : and I'm not sure there's more in there I'm overlooking there's enough
> : acronyms to risk compressing a paragraph beyond comprehension.
>
> Oh at the META-level. Ah. Well, fwiw
>
> yafiygi You Asked For It You Got It
Toyota?
> dwim Do What I Mean
> wysiwyg What You See Is What You Get
> gui Graphical User Interface
>
> Of particular interest, yafiygi and wysiwyg reference a traditional
> duality. And gui is associated with wysiwyg, and cli with yafiygi,
> though they aren't inextricably tied together. Or maybe they are magical
> incantations in the True Language, I'm not sure....
>
>
> Um, awright awright, cli=CommandLineInterface, fwiw="ForWhatIt'sWorth".
IOW, IIRC, YMMV.
> Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"norrin" <adwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161582926.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Psst, try asking how "magic" differs from the "science" in science fiction.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
So is fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc.
Then again, so is free will.
-- Ken from Chicago
William December Starr
> Oh at the META-level. Ah. Well, fwiw
>
> yafiygi You Asked For It You Got It
Before I looked that one up at <www.acronymfinder.com>, my
guess was You Are Fucked If You Get It.
Michael Grosberg
Wayne Throop wrote:
> [1] "built into the universe" like the background of http://www.misfile.com/
> where a clerical error made by a pot-smoking angel has the effect of
> "poof, you're a girl" on a youngish person of the male persuasion.
> Both dwim and symbolic. And, interestingly enough, gets a
> reductionistic, nigh-technological handwave, which is amusing and
> illustrates some of the difficulties with my point of view.
>
> http://www.misfile.com/?page=16
Nice! reminded me of the Bell continuum from Greg Bear's _Moving Mars_.
Howard Brazee
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>What is supernatural?
>
>What COULD be supernatural?
>
>There are things that are artificial but supernatural? Impossible. It would
>just mean our definition of "natural" was too narrow.
People believe in stuff which doesn't exist. Santa Clause is
supernatural.
Wayne Throop
: It would me the physics in that universe allowed for symbolic properties of
: properties of a magnetized metal can be shared to non-magnetized metal. We
: would consider it a normal part of the universe.
Right. The magical part. Not really different than saying a given
interaction is due to em forces vs strong nuclear forces vs weak
nuclear forces, etc. This would be the magical forces. And they are
magical becuase they have a significant distinguishing characteristic,
namely, that they are based on high-level conceptual categories right down
to the lowest level, rather than being reduced to underlying mechanisms
from which high level conceptual categories emerge by interaction.
Gene Wirchenko
>On 22 Oct 2006 15:51:11 -0700, "Michael Grosberg"
><grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>I just ran into a similar discussion on some other board, which started
>>by discussing McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_. Can someone remind me whether
>>there were any cientific sounding explanations of the dragons' origin
>>and abilities in the first book?
>
>It was vaguely hinted at. It was also made clear that this was a
>lost colony.
It was explicitly stated. The character who did it then died. A
little too convenient that (I thought).
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
Unless magic-use or the ability makes one sterile.
How many wizards do you see with families? It might not be a
trope that wizards do not have families, but it is close.
Gene Wirchenko
>In article <11615...@sheol.org>,
>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
>
>> Oh at the META-level. Ah. Well, fwiw
>>
>> yafiygi You Asked For It You Got It
>
>Before I looked that one up at <www.acronymfinder.com>, my
>guess was You Are Fucked If You Get It.
That might be a more accurate expansion even though it is not the
usual one.
erilar
"Michael Grosberg" <grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just ran into a similar discussion on some other board, which started
> by discussing McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_. Can someone remind me whether
> there were any cientific sounding explanations of the dragons' origin
> and abilities in the first book? I know that _Dragonsdawn_ detailed
> their origin as genetically manipulated beings, I just don't remember
> what was in the original book.
That book was written LATER, however. For the first two, the dragons
just flew. More origin info came later.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar),
philologist, biblioholic medievalist
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
PV
>>>by discussing McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_. Can someone remind me whether
>>>there were any cientific sounding explanations of the dragons' origin
>>>and abilities in the first book?
Yes, but not in the first book. It comes up in "Dragonsdawn". *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Ken Arromdee
>> bizarre concept is presented (whether it's invisibility or mind reading or
>> precognition), there has to be enough of a hint given that ultimately it
>> is based on scientific principles and the scientific method. The simplest
>> way is to just have it be wielded by characters who are engineers,
>> scientists, or trained technicians. Even if they don't explain the
>> details of how it's done.
>For example how well users EXTRAPOLATE a standard use into something more
>esoteric, for example using a wand of fire ball blasting to propell a raft
>as if it's jet thrust.
The problem I have with this idea is the same as I do with the idea that
it isn't science fiction if people use swords in space: it conflates the
idea of "bad science fiction" with "not science fiction".
If it's supposed to be a world where the scientific method works, and
reliable results happen, the fact that the author didn't think out some
element of his world shouldn't disqualify it from being science fiction--
just from being good science fiction.
If worlds with "scientific magic" count as science fiction at all, then they
shouldn't stop counting just because the author didn't bother to have people
use fireballs in ways they would if fireballs really worked. That's not a
change in genre, that's just a mistake.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In article <1161557471.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Michael Grosberg" <grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just ran into a similar discussion on some other board, which started
> > by discussing McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_. Can someone remind me whether
> > there were any cientific sounding explanations of the dragons' origin
> > and abilities in the first book? I know that _Dragonsdawn_ detailed
> > their origin as genetically manipulated beings, I just don't remember
> > what was in the original book.
>
> That book was written LATER, however. For the first two, the dragons
> just flew. More origin info came later.
"developed a highly specialized variety of a life form indigenous to
their adopted planet--the winged, tailed, and fire-breathing dragons,
named for the Earth legend they resembled. Such humans as had a high
empathy rating and some innate telepathic ability were trained to
make use of and preserve this unusual animal whose ability to
teleport was of immense value"
from "Weyr Search" (1968), the first half of _Dragonflight_ (quoting
from _The Hugo Winners, vol I and II_)
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: gae...@aol.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
David Johnston
I don't think it would work anyway unless you had wizards getting
knocked on their butts every time they tried to throw a fireball.
Which would be funny mind you.
norrin
That's a good reference to the fiction of Cyrano de Bergerac. If the
laws of physics take into account symbolic properties, then they
are probably unknowable. Mere humans would be unable to prove
the unknowability of the laws of physics without help.
Wayne Throop
: That's a good reference to the fiction of Cyrano de Bergerac. If the
: laws of physics take into account symbolic properties, then they are
: probably unknowable.
Huh? Why would that make them unknowable?
David Johnston
wrote:
>: "norrin" <adwe...@hotmail.com>
>: That's a good reference to the fiction of Cyrano de Bergerac. If the
>: laws of physics take into account symbolic properties, then they are
>: probably unknowable.
>
>Huh? Why would that make them unknowable?
Because symbols are defined by people's minds.
Ken from Chicago
"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@azure.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ehjbh3$lst$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <CNKdnZno4cR0UabY...@comcast.com>,
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> What does this mean for science fiction vs. fantasy? When a new and
>>> bizarre concept is presented (whether it's invisibility or mind reading
>>> or
>>> precognition), there has to be enough of a hint given that ultimately it
>>> is based on scientific principles and the scientific method. The
>>> simplest
>>> way is to just have it be wielded by characters who are engineers,
>>> scientists, or trained technicians. Even if they don't explain the
>>> details of how it's done.
>>For example how well users EXTRAPOLATE a standard use into something more
>>esoteric, for example using a wand of fire ball blasting to propell a raft
>>as if it's jet thrust.
>
> The problem I have with this idea is the same as I do with the idea that
> it isn't science fiction if people use swords in space: it conflates the
> idea of "bad science fiction" with "not science fiction".
I was seeing it more in a positive not negative way, that is, if one could
use magic in innovative ways that adhere to logical extrapolations and
applications of scientific methods (e.g., splashing water on a rock slide
then a freeze spell to expand the water and crack the rocks)--as opposed to
a LACK of innovative uses of magic to indicate lack of science fictionness.
> If it's supposed to be a world where the scientific method works, and
> reliable results happen, the fact that the author didn't think out some
> element of his world shouldn't disqualify it from being science fiction--
> just from being good science fiction.
>
> If worlds with "scientific magic" count as science fiction at all, then
> they
> shouldn't stop counting just because the author didn't bother to have
> people
> use fireballs in ways they would if fireballs really worked. That's not a
> change in genre, that's just a mistake.
I love the phrase Eric Walker has, "regular magic". It sums up the idea
beautifully--even if he seems to disagree with my basic premise.
Yes, I agree that one shouldn't be bound only by the mistakes of the authors
(e.g., Han Solo's infamous "12 parsecs" or a novel that had depicted Mars as
hot as an Earth desert instead of subzero temperature, both authors admitted
mistakes there).
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
> "You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
> on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
I stand corrected.
However, if it were found someone could do what Santa Claus (are you
plugging the upcoming Tim Allen movie?) did, then we would have to expand
our definition of "nature" and "natural".
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Judging from various reported abilities, Santa would have to be some
kind of time traveller and / or dimension hopper, able to step out of the
regular flow of time.
Ken from Chicago
> In article <1161562381....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>>The only way of avoiding that deadly similarity is some clunky and
>>visibly artificial auctorial restriction, some relatively rare "magical
>>aptitude" that ignores all of Charles Darwin's work (if a force
>>susceptible of biological use exists, evolution will favor those who
>>can use it; by the time a substantial civilization develops, the trait
>>would be near-universal--in fact, come to think on it, most life forms
>>would probably be using it, too, just as most use light to sense their
>>environment).
>
> Why can't magic be like being a doctor, or a nuclear engineer? Not
> everyone
> has the aptitude to become a nuclear engineer, evolution or not.
Or it's less a case of aptitude but self-discipline. Not everyone is willing
to study the number of years needed to become a doctor, nuclear engineer,
etc.
Some lack the self-discipline to be a writer, to keep writing REGULARLY or
meeting the deadline for a writer.
Ken from Chicago
Agreed. Magic might be viewed as another field of science or a special kind
of science, like classical physics, relativistic physics, quantum physics,
magical physics--where the last is influenced by belief, willpower, focus,
concentration, emotion, ley lines, "hot spots", "sponsor" beings (e.g.,
gods, demons, devils, spirits, ghosts, fairies, etc.), symbolic
relationships, etc.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote in message
news:dfjqj25e92bd2tq0l...@4ax.com...
The limits might be unknowable, but some symbols would be reliable. Notice
the common use of a lock of hair in various stories, or blood or spit.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> In article <1161547648.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>How clearly defined the rules are makes no difference to whether
>>something is magic or tech. Stories written to AD&D rules have some
>>very specific parameters telling us how to get magic to work and what
>>effects it can produce. That does not make it tech, though depending on
>>the story it can function like tech. Why? Because the rules say it's
>>magic.
>>
>>This suggests to me that the only reason we don't have magic in the
>>real world is the lack of an author claiming that we do.
>
> No, I don't think so. Going to the author is just the best way to figure
> it out. If the author isn't available, then we figure it out as best we
> can without contacting the author.
>
> I think there are things that pretty clearly would count as magic if we
> saw
> them in the real world, despite not having anyone to ask "is this magic".
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
> "You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
> on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
It would be viewed as "magic" in the sense of some "trick", "stunt",
"illusion", etc. we didn't understand.
-- Ken from Chicago
Gene Ward Smith
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> In article <1161547648.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This suggests to me that the only reason we don't have magic in the
> >real world is the lack of an author claiming that we do.
> No, I don't think so. Going to the author is just the best way to figure
> it out. If the author isn't available, then we figure it out as best we
> can without contacting the author.
> I think there are things that pretty clearly would count as magic if we saw
> them in the real world, despite not having anyone to ask "is this magic".
What would be an example? I think such things would be classed as
psychic, miraculous, or some other category.
Ken from Chicago
Standing on dry ground would be one thing, but a wizard fight on rafts (as
opposed to large stable boats) might be funny to watch, akin to a shootout
between astronauts floating in open space using slug throwers.
-- Ken from Chicago
Sea Wasp
> "David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote in message
> news:lhhqj212pm4gvnso4...@4ax.com...
>
>>I don't think it would work anyway unless you had wizards getting
>>knocked on their butts every time they tried to throw a fireball.
>>Which would be funny mind you.
>
>
> Standing on dry ground would be one thing, but a wizard fight on rafts (as
> opposed to large stable boats) might be funny to watch, akin to a shootout
> between astronauts floating in open space using slug throwers.
All depends on the way you have magic work. Very few of the magical
methodologies extant in my universe, for instance, would produce the
effects you're describing. There's no particular reason there should
be a significant recoil from a fireball.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Ken from Chicago
"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161648762.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
"Psychic" is mutually exclusive from "magic"?
Teleportation might be viewed as magical or fire-breathing flying dragons or
shape-changing.
-- Ken from Chicago
Howard Brazee
Wayne Throop
:::: they are probably unknowable.
::: Huh? Why would that make them unknowable?
:: Because symbols are defined by people's minds.
Huh? How does that make them unknowable?
And for that matter, what makes you so sure symbols are defined
by people's minds in a universe where magic works?
Mike Schilling
> :::: If the laws of physics take into account symbolic properties, then
> :::: they are probably unknowable.
> ::: Huh? Why would that make them unknowable?
> :: Because symbols are defined by people's minds.
>
> Huh? How does that make them unknowable?
"Is knowledge knowable, and if not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen
Eric Walker
[...]
> People believe in stuff which doesn't exist. Santa Clause is
> supernatural.
Groucho: Why that's in every contract! It means that if one of the
parties was out of his mind at the time, the contract is void.
Chico (laughing): No, no, you can't'a foola me--there ain't no Sanity
Clause.
Taki Kogoma
allegedly declared to rec.arts.sf.written...
>erilar wrote:
>> In article <1161557471.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Michael Grosberg" <grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I just ran into a similar discussion on some other board, which started
>> > by discussing McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_. Can someone remind me whether
>> > there were any cientific sounding explanations of the dragons' origin
>> > and abilities in the first book? I know that _Dragonsdawn_ detailed
>> > their origin as genetically manipulated beings, I just don't remember
>> > what was in the original book.
>>
>> That book was written LATER, however. For the first two, the dragons
>> just flew. More origin info came later.
>
>"developed a highly specialized variety of a life form indigenous to
>their adopted planet--the winged, tailed, and fire-breathing dragons,
>named for the Earth legend they resembled. Such humans as had a high
>empathy rating and some innate telepathic ability were trained to
>make use of and preserve this unusual animal whose ability to
>teleport was of immense value"
>
>from "Weyr Search" (1968), the first half of _Dragonflight_ (quoting
>from _The Hugo Winners, vol I and II_)
Nit-pick:
"Weyr Search" is the first quarter of _Dragonflight_, and had been
extensively edited -- mostly for cosmetic purposes[1] -- when
McCaffrey did the fix-up with "Dragonrider"[2] to create the book.
[1] Changes were in language and some scenes rewritten for a different
character's POV. In addition, a few more scenes were inserted,
but the overall plot is unchanged.
[2] "Dragonrider" was written a few months before the publication of
_Dragonflight_ and forms the second half of the book. TTBOMK, it
was not noticably altered from the initial novella form.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
Eric Walker
> Eric Walker wrote:
>
> > David Johnston wrote:
>
> > > However, he's overlooked more than
> > > a few alternatives. Magical "aptitude" after all need not be the
> > > product of genetics. It can be the results of say...pacts with the
> > > Devil. Or fetal exposure to invisible "flows" of energy. Or a decade
> > > or two of meditation. Or divine grace.
>
> > None of which are exempt from evolutionary processes. Making a result
> > indirect affects nothing: those capable of or prone to do such things
> > will be more likely than others to leave like-inclined or like-talented
> > descendents.
>
> Nah. A decade of meditation only works for celibate monks. Satan makes
> sure to screw anyone foolish enough to make a pact with him, and God
> punishes unto the third and fourth generation any offsping which
> somehow get by Satan. Fetal exposure sounds good, but any resulting
> children are no longer human, and too tender of sensibilities to abide
> long in this cruel world. Divine grace is only rarely handed out to the
> non-celibate.
Even granting those things--all of which I'd say fall quite neatly into
the category I described earlier as a "clunky and visibly artificial
auctorial restriction"--there are collinear lines of descent that would
pass on the genes; if having a magic-worker in the family gave even the
slightest net advantage, the ability would increase.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
Ken from Chicago
"Eric Walker" <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
news:1161654291.3...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Unless it were a recessive trait like natural blonde hair.
Worse, it's a recessive trait like Michael Jordan-level basketball ability
where you have the POTENTIAL but you still need to TRAIN, hard, to reach
said potential. A lot of people might balk at excessive extensive extended
training.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "You've got a gift, Roy ... but it's not enough."--THE NATURAL.
Ken from Chicago
> Some potions have graduated from magic to technology.
Agreed. Alchemy developed to chemistry.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t5e%g.23258$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
We think therefore we think we know.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are known by your
philosophy.
-- Ken from Chicago
norrin
A shaman often duplicates the appearance of an animal to acquire the
qualities of an animal or thing. It's unclear how the laws of magic can
enhance some qualities and not others, and even less clear how they
know what the shaman is duplicating.
In some cases, the laws of magic are enhanced by belief and reduced
by doubt. In some places, blessings and curses work. Somehow the
universe is able to read a person's mind.
IOW, DWIM
You could say that magic words are nothing more than magic sounds
created by a living being. If so, it's a big coincidence that the
language
used for speech is also useful for magic.
There's no way to know that the laws of magic will not change with
time. There's no way to know that there aren't new laws of magic
out there. Unknowable.
Gene Ward Smith
norrin wrote:
> There's no way to know that the laws of magic will not change with
> time. There's no way to know that there aren't new laws of magic
> out there. Unknowable.
There's no way to know that the laws of physics will not change with
time. There's no way to know that there aren't new laws of physics
out there. Unknowable.