Gaea fed up with Mamoru Chooses Another Guardian

[Maximara]

Yes? But in the SM universe, magic is unquestionably real.

And merely saying that this isn´t magic, i just don´t understand it enough, that´s just as bad as the other side of the coin, your "just being lazy" solution.

There is nothing in the SM universe that prevents Clarke' Law from operating.

As for the claim "saying that this isn´t magic, i just don´t understand it enough" is garbage to anyone who has watched Star Trek.

"Catspaw" with Sylvia and Korob case in point:

KOROB: Captain, you've seen something of our science. Now tell us about yours.
KIRK: You seem to be singing a different tune. I'd rather know more about yours. You call it magic, you call it science. It seems unrelated to both of them.
KOROB: What would you name it, Captain?
KIRK: I wouldn't attempt to name it, but you seem to do with your mind what we do with tools. You alter matter, move it about by telekinesis.

Kirk would meet others who were able to do the same: Trelane and the Organians. The main difference is that Sylvia and Korob were using a technological dod dad called a Transmuter.

Using Edwin Abbott Abbott's Flatland as his foundation, Carl Sagan in the print version of Cosmos stated: "If a fourth-dimension creature existed it could, in our three-dimensional universe, appear and dematerialize at will, change shape remarkably, pluck us out of locked rooms, and make us appear from nowhere." —Carl Sagan. Cosmos pg 219 All things called "magic".

In fact, this use of higher dimensional shadows was first suggested Cambridge Platonist Henry Moore in the 17th century! Johann Karl Friedrich Zöllner took the idea and built on it.

Take the Tenchi multiverse--everything even the Magical Girl Pretty Sammy spin off is the product of either super science or multidimensionality ie NO magic.

[Spica75]

There is nothing in the SM universe that prevents Clarke' Law from operating.

There´s also nothing there that gives it credence. Just as there is nothing in reality to give it credence.

Using Edwin Abbott Abbott's Flatland as his foundation, Carl Sagan in the print version of Cosmos stated: "If a fourth-dimension creature existed it could, in our three-dimensional universe, appear and dematerialize at will, change shape remarkably, pluck us out of locked rooms, and make us appear from nowhere." —Carl Sagan. Cosmos pg 219 All things called "magic".

That is only true if you make your next dimension, "convenient". If you have a dot on a paper, adding a third dimension might mean you can manipulate the dot in a way impossible from 2 dimensions, however the dot might just as well still be as stuck as unmovable(or remain as movable in 2 dimensions as it already were), you can just observe it being unmovable from yet another dimension.

It´s similar to how in theory, something 2D can be inside something 3D without knowing it or being able to prove it, however for that to actually be true, the conditions needed to be met are unrealistical.

As for the claim "saying that this isn´t magic, i just don´t understand it enough" is garbage to anyone who has watched Star Trek.

And how is that relevant in any way here? The 2 datapoints we have and can compare is SM canon and known reality, another fictional universe has no bearing on either exactly because it is fictional.

Take the Tenchi multiverse--everything even the Magical Girl Pretty Sammy spin off is the product of either super science or multidimensionality ie NO magic.

Again, why would that affect SM canon or known reality?

[Té Rowan]

And don't forget Niven's Law, which is basically Clarke's Law with the words 'technology' and 'magic' swapped, as in: "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." It's quantum, I guess.

[Maximara]

And don't forget Niven's Law, which is basically Clarke's Law with the words 'technology' and 'magic' swapped, as in: "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." It's quantum, I guess.

Don't forget the expanded version of Clarke's Law: Any sufficiently advanced or different technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Read GURPS Steampunk and think how magical some of that tech could be if their view of the universe had been more accurate then it was.

[Crescent Pulsar S]

I like Occam's razor. Laws can be so pretentious.

[Ellen Kuhfeld]

I like Occam's razor. Laws can be so pretentious.

Occam's razor is all very well, but sometimes it leaves you bleeding after you use it.

[Maximara]

I like Occam's razor. Laws can be so pretentious.

Occam's razor: among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Magic by its very nature makes a bucket load of assumptions: that it works in a certain way, that there unseen relationships between action x and result y, etc

Clarke's Law makes only ONE assumption - technology that doesn't fit how we think the universe operates will be regarded as magic. By Occam's razor Clarke's Law wins hands down after a 10 second bout.

PICARD: Someone invented a hut. Someone invented a bow, who taught others, who taught their children, who built a stronger hut, built a better bow, who taught their children. Now, Nuria, suppose one of your cave dwelling ancestors could see you as you are today. What would she think?
NURIA: I don't know.
PICARD: Put yourself in her place. You see, she cannot kill a hornbuck at a great distance. You can. You have a power she lacks.
NURIA: Only because I have a bow.
PICARD: She's never seen a bow. It doesn't exist in her world. To you, it's a simple tool. To her, it's magic. - TNG Who Watches the Watchers

GURPS Religion and GURPS Thaumatology both go into the insane variety of magic that exists. There is ridiculous amount of variety in the magic that is believed to exist never mind the type of magic seen in high level sword and sorcery.

The type of magic people actually believe in falls into the category of "hedge magic" and is very low key. NO fireballs or showy magic here. In fact, you may not even sure if there is any magic actually involved. The 1985 movie Flesh and Blood captures just how this type of "magic" looks and feels.

It is like the saga of Ephraim McDowell (1771-1830) a physician who managed to perform several successful abdominal operations...long before antiseptics or even anesthesia as we understand them even existed. While called a pioneer surgeon today the reality is McDowell didn't really bring anything to the table in either the short or long term because he drought no new techniques or methods...just a mixture of desperation and extraordinary luck.

But how did McDowell himself see the success of his first operation? "How is it that I have been so peculiarly fortunate with my patients of this description?, I know not; for, from all the information I can obtain, there has not one individual survived who has been operated, on elsewhere, for diseased ovaria. I can only say that the blessing of God has rested on my efforts."

McDowell didn't see his success as extraordinary luck in that his first patient was so strong in mind and body to survive being cut open while fully awake ( ) or the fact he was "neat and clean", "scrupulously clean", and had removed blood from the peritoneal cavity and bathing the intestines with warm water (possibly reducing the effect of infection) but as the result of divine magic.

This is why going to "magic" as an explanation is a lazy way to do things.

[Crescent Pulsar S]

There's more than one assumption to the law. Aside from the obvious one, where we might jump to the conclusion that that which we don't understand is magic, rather than persist that it's technology that we don't understand, it might also assume that magic is real enough for a comparison. The law also has assumptions in baggage, depending on the context and questions being posed. For instance, one thing to ask is whether there is a science to magic or not. If so, one has to decide if that makes products made out of magic technology. If we were to observe the same process produce the same result, and that result is a fireball, is the fireball technology? On the other hand, if we see a bullet hole but no smoking gun, was the appearance of that bullet hole truly random and/or without means of reproduction?

Occam's razor is all very well, but sometimes it leaves you bleeding after you use it.

No worries: it's just a flesh wound.

[Spica75]

Clarke's Law makes only ONE assumption - technology that doesn't fit how we think the universe operates will be regarded as magic.

Eh?

No, that´s most certainly not what it says. "will be regarded as" and "cannot be distinguished from" are completely different meanings.
There is also nothing what so ever about "doesn´t fit" OR "how we think the universe operates".

These are additional assumptions made by you, that have no place with the original theorem.

Clarke's Law makes only ONE assumption

That´s also completely wrong, as CP gets into. Assuming magic can or does exist however IS only one single assumption.

This is why going to "magic" as an explanation is a lazy way to do things.

Thats only true if you assume magic does not exist and cannot exist. Otherwise your statements are potentially like covering your ears with your hands and loudly singing "lalalalalala, i can´t hear you!".

The type of magic people actually believe in falls into the category of "hedge magic" and is very low key.

Try looking at the background material and research by the makers of the game Ars Magica, and i can guarantee that you will find that belief historically has stretched far further. And since current beliefs are based on what was, those are more or less included in beliefs of today.

PICARD: She's never seen a bow. It doesn't exist in her world. To you, it's a simple tool. To her, it's magic.

That´s a rubbish comparison that makes the hideously poor assumption that not knowing also automatically means not being able to figure it out.
And considering that people have successfully reverse engineered ideas and technology for thousands of years, that is blatanly incorrect.

Magic by its very nature makes a bucket load of assumptions: that it works in a certain way, that there unseen relationships between action x and result y, etc

And nowadays we actually KNOW that "unseen relationships" are not just realistic, they definitely exist. Quantum entanglement being the quick and simple example.


In short, i completely reject just about everything you wrote.

[Maximara]

Clarke's Law makes only ONE assumption - technology that doesn't fit how we think the universe operates will be regarded as magic.

Eh?

No, that´s most certainly not what it says. "will be regarded as" and "cannot be distinguished from" are completely different meanings.
There is also nothing what so ever about "doesn´t fit" OR "how we think the universe operates".

Actually per James Burke's Day the Universe Changed and Gary Zukav's Dancing Wu Li Masters that is what it boils down to: The model (or structure) of how the universe works determines your research...right down to what you consider reliable data.

One problem people have today is they go science = technology and nothing could be further from the truth. As Burke related in the last show of Connections showed technology is the result of many forces: war, religion, philosophy, deliberate search, accident, etc.

The clock for instance in the West started out as a way to tell the faithful what time it was so they could pray at the proper hour.

As I said before "magic" is a catch all category that doesn't explain anything.

Lightning isn't caused by an electrical discharge; it is some deity who woke up on the wrong side of the cloud or is throwing his hammer down at the ground because he is bored.

Thaumatology is the science of magic.

[Crescent Pulsar S]

I don't know which people you're referring to, but I know that science and technology aren't the same thing. Science is the basis for technology. There are multiple fields of technology, but not of science: science is science. It wouldn't make sense for there to be a science specifically devoted to magic, since -- as far as I'm aware -- it's a potentially harnessable and manipulatable resource, like water, electricity, iron, et cetera. I mean, just because general relativity and quantum field theory don't completely agree with each other, that doesn't mean they each require their own science. If it's at all possible to understand how something works, it's just a matter of attaining that understanding, so a day may yet come where one theory explains everything. If magic is ever discovered, it'll just be another thing to try and fit into the same theory as everything else, via science.

Also, technology is a result of science. It's through our understanding of the world around us that we are able to figure out new technologies. It would be wrong to credit those discoveries on the reasons for why such understandings and technologies were sought, rather than the method(s) that made it possible.

[Ellen Kuhfeld]

Also, technology is a result of science. It's through our understanding of the world around us that we are able to figure out new technologies. It would be wrong to credit those discoveries on the reasons for why such understandings and technologies were sought, rather than the method(s) that made it possible.

Technology and science have a back-and-forth relationship. It cannot be entirely science > technology, because we often had the technology first. Take, for example, flint arrowheads: people were making them (technology) long before they knew the intimate details (science). And they were shooting arrows long before they figured out ballistics. Sometimes the science comes first: we knew about nuclear fission (science) and used that to make bombs and powerplants (technology).

Sometimes we do something, then figure out how it works. Sometimes we study something, then apply the knowledge.

[Crescent Pulsar S]

While I agree with that, what I meant was more in omniscient terms. Even if they didn't know there was a science to what they were doing, or that it could be called a science, or that they themselves were a scientist, it didn't stop them from using the right methodology (possibly after observation and/or experimentation and the like) to produce the desired technology consistently.

[Ellen Kuhfeld]

While I agree with that, what I meant was more in omniscient terms.

None of us are omniscient. And I maintain the spear (at the least) was technology without science. Humans are uniquely suited to throwing. It's one of the things that makes us human. And for over a million years, it has been encoded in our wetware. If you want to count the evolutionary process as science, I can see your point -- but I think it is, more accurately, technology. Trial and error is fundamental to both science and technology, of course, so we're arguing definitions.

Definitions are one of the very best things to argue about, since a good definition helps shape our view of the world.

[Crescent Pulsar S]

I wasn't saying we were. What I meant (deja vu!?) is that we weren't liable to be left behind by the planet because gravity didn't keep us on it until we understood how it worked. The science of how the universe works has been there all along; at the very least we need to notice and add it to the rest of the knowledge we've gathered.

Of course, my definition of science might be too broad, or a matter of semantics. I dunno. I never claimed to be an intelligent person.