Doctor Who defined Science Fiction better than Star Trek.

Actor.

If you rephrase that to be "Any magic is indistiguishable from a sufficiently advanced technology", you still get kind of what he was saying (basically, use 'magic', claim its tech) and it keeps with the original law.

But but but.. that was the original law..




My questions remain

@Slamlander:



I think that statement is flawed. I think that it is flawed because of the very nature of magic itself. Magic is rarely ever given a definite source for the energy used within/by it. What *is* magic, anyway?

As THE MAN himself said; "God does not play dice". Now I realise slammy that your work might well explain the original source for the energy that allows magic to be used, but as a fore-warning, ideas like "mana" just aren't legit enough to give magic credibility :)

If it interests you, Warhammer allowed the use of magic (termed 'sorcery') due to the parallel dimension of "The warp". It is, in essence, a dimension created by a coellescance (sp?) of the mental energy of all life. Since we know that the brain produces measurable waves, the idea isn't completely without footing.

Additionally, out of curiousity, what do you mean by 'developed magic'? Do you mean developed in the sense of evolution; in that the magic itself has reached a point of sophistication that it could be confused for natural/artificially produced effects. OR, do you mean developed in the sense of techniques concerning it's manipulation? If so, we are not only again pointed to question what magic is (and it's source, for eg electricity uses electromagnetism, magic uses ??), but also *how* does one manipulate magic? With machines? If so, doesn't that make your magic-machines technological by very definition?

I'm looking forwards to this reply, for sure. Your idea has potential definitely.

def. - the study of techniques.

I think what they're trying to say is... "What is magic, really?"

And before we go into territory that will contractually obligate me to point out that we've even got a shirt about this, let's instead approach this from an outside point of view. Magic is most commonly considered the ability to manipulate forces through energy... Merriam-Webster defines it as 1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations first and foremost.

Now, who are we to presuppose what form this manipulation takes? After all, the very same dictionary website goes on to define supernatural as 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil... so, if then... Magic is controlling the natural through use of the supernatural, and supernatural is anything beyond the visible observable universe... then there's all sorts of stuff that's magic.

Hell, even this computer is magic. I am ignorant to a number of it's principles, and many of them (like the flow of electrons, photons to the monitor, data on storage devices) aren't really visible... under certain conditions observable (provided I have the right charms and spells)... but the principle stands.

Magic is manipulation of the known universe via the (generally) unknown universe. Science is manipulation of the known universe via the (generally) unknown universe. At a certain point, it's all a matter of degree. Schroedinger's Cat, the Turing Test, Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty... almost all of bleedin' quantum physics... they all trade heavily in the realms of the completely unseen and generally unknowable. All Clark's Law (and it's verse visa) state is that at some point in scientific evolution, the boundryline between magic and science will become imperceivable to those who are not deeply schooled in one, the other, or both.

I mean, what if we are the only intelligent life form? What if we search the galaxy for aliens, and find that there are either absolutely none, only animals, or primitive civilisations *at best*?

Considering the age of our planet, it's location, and what we're doing to it, I think my theory is highly unlikely. It's also terribly possible.

If you rephrase that to be "Any magic is indistiguishable from a sufficiently advanced technology", you still get kind of what he was saying (basically, use 'magic', claim its tech) and it keeps with the original law.

I think that statement is flawed. I think that it is flawed because of the very nature of magic itself. Magic is rarely ever given a definite source for the energy used within/by it. What *is* magic, anyway?

As THE MAN himself said; "God does not play dice".

actually, the real contrapositive to the original statement is
"There exist forms of magic that are indistinguishable from advanced technology" and says nothing about other forms of magic.

Einstein basically hated Quantum Mechanics, was sure things had to be deterministic undeneath, spent the whole rest of his life trying to work it out, and never got anywhere. Stephen Hawking's reply, "Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us. by throwing them where they can't be seen." and the experiments since then have pretty much borne this out.

Lots of room for magic in there.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think our brains are not deterministic?

The simple fact that you asked that question states huge volumes about what you know about analog neural nets, which are nondeterministic by definition, almost. The only other near equivalent are analog computers, which are built with analog circuits. Look those things up on google and read. It would otherwise require a 50-page treatise which I don't have time to write.

I got nuthin'

The simple fact that you asked that question states huge volumes about what you know about analog neural nets,

Any sufficiently developed magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Actually, it says very little. That I don't know anything about them. One sentence suffices, no need of huge volumes.

The thing to remember is that in any realm where magic exists, and technology exists, they are both essential parts of that realm.


...
The deeper the explanation of such phenomena, the more like technology the magic becomes.

My questions remain

The only non-deterministic systems we have are our own brains.

I just realised how this sounds and I apologize, but you still deserve the explanation and I don't know a better way to say it.

No worries, I've found a bit about neural nets, interesting stuff. Will read up a bit on the subject. I wasn't being confrontational when I said I was curious, it was honest curiosity. People tend to have weird ideas about how the brain works, its fun to read for the most part. And sometimes people do have an idea about what they're talking about, and it can be interesting to read.