h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Cool.

What were we atually discussing before we got on the subject of whether mathematics existed or not?

I can't remember.

Have we discussed the existence of magic before?

I'm for the existence of magic. (Not pulling rabbits out of hats and stuff.) Just because it's not a widely agreed upon phenomenon doesn't make it unexistant. UV rays from the sun were natural phenomena long before they were discovered.

and s,
~Wes

Magic n. The art of influencing nature or future events by occult means.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Noggin

Only to someone who doesn't understand the science behind the technology, surely?

Occultism, by definition, hides its secrets from non-initiates. It exists primarily to make those outside the magic circle feel inadequate and foolish. Technology often looks incomprehensible to non-specialists, but in principle anyone can get a book out of the local library or attend an evening class and figure out the logic behind it.

Wow, only in this forum could we go from plugging skepdic.com to saying magic exists without missing a beat.

Lear, I'm happy to make that change in your title, and it's good to hear from you; I'd wondered if you still came 'round anymore. Hope that is alright, nobody better have spiked the tea...

Skepdic.com is utterly rabid, IMO, in their position that nothing exists that hasn't been confirmed in double-blind tests conducted by skeptics. Who's ever proven that detection by skeptics in double-blind tests is a necessary condition for the existence of a phenomena? That's what I want to know.

Don't get me wrong; I've no problem including a link on the page. Page updates are always fun...




GTB

By the way, MaW, did you request a new chair name? After all this time, I'd hate to lose it in the backlog.

It's a quote - well, a paraphrase anyway - from Arthur C. Clarke.

But how would you tell the difference between magic and a totally unfamiliar technology based on novel principles. What would Ugg have made of TV?

Magic is like miracles - Do the Laws of Physics need to be broken, and how would you know that was what was happening?

Noggin

Howdy, GT, and thanks for the welcome. So prompt as well! The service around here has certainly improved. And, no, the tea tastes just fine...

I think the point about double-blind tests is that it doesn't matter who conducts them, sceptic or non-sceptic, they won't be able to get away with jumping to any convenient conclusions about their research. They just provide a way of preventing anyone from 'proving' too easily that their experiment has backed up their hypothesis - because, of course, they don't know which result is the real one and which is the control. It's as good a way as any, IMO, to draw a distinction between serious science and crankery (or 'magic', as some people like to call it ).


Noggin, I have to admit that "a totally unfamiliar technology based on novel principles," sounds more like sci-fi than science, to me. I assume that any new piece of technology would have to be based on already existing scientific principles, and would therefore conform to the laws of physics. But I'll have to reserve judgement, because I'm not exactly sure what you mean.


Lear

What if, say, we encountered a highly advanced alien civilisation with technology so far beyond ours we couldn't even begin to comprehend the basic principles of it? That could look like magic to us.

Magic doesn't have to be occult - occultism does by definition hide its secrets, but the secrets of British and American neo-Pagan witchcraft are fairly easy to obtain now, you can walk into your local bookstore and buy book after book on them (although lots of the books are very bad). It does work though - at least, in my experience, so how can it not exist?

I always find it helpful to point out to Christians who rubbish the possibility of magic that they believe their prayers work, don't they? Then they start going on about God doing the work with prayers, but aren't we just talking to the same thing in the end? Certainly Wiccan magic has a lot to do with the Goddess and the God, although it also involves personal power, which Christian prayer doesn't seem to so much - but when I look at both of them together they do seem quite similar in a lot of ways.

<..if we encountered a highly advanced alien civilisation..> is a concrete example of what I had in my mind as a way of directing attention to the question of what we mean by magic.

1) Magic works by some set of cause and effect rules
2) The universe works by some set of cause and effect rules
3) These two sets of rules interact with each other in a rule governed way
4) Therefore - they are parts of a Single set of rules

So what COUNTS as magic?

Noggin

Something that works against all logic.

If it works against ALL logic, then you don't know what's going on.

Therefore magic = ignorance. Which takes us back to my original point.

In order to be known to be working magic must have it's own internal rules connecting ritual (cause) to effect.

Ugg, on having the TV explained to him, will probably regard radiowaves as a magical force under the control of the warlock/engineer.

Noggin

It's been said that magic is merely something science has yet to study and classify and demystify. That strikes me as possibly quite true - especially with the occasional semi-serious investigation into 'weird stuff' that we see from time to time. One day someone will stumble across something and then the world will change... again. Hopefully for the better.

Something whose rules we haven't begun to suspect, never mind unravel?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Something conventional science doesn't accept as actually existing? For instance, I very much the holder of a pure scientific viewpoint would give much thought to the possibility that when I cast a spell it actually works, would they?

Who says our laws of physics are the correct ones?

Who says the universe is governed by laws? We have invented 'laws' which seem to allow the actions of the universe to be predicted, most of the time. All we can accurately deduce from this is that our 'laws' must have some similarity to whatever it is that causes the universe to act consistently as it does. The 'correct ones'...?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Yup, the 'laws' of physics are just a set of theories that seem to fit the available facts. When they don't, they are modified, or someone invents a new 'fact'. (Dark matter anyone.)

And when I say _fact_, I mean, repeatable, observational, seeming property of the known universe, or something. (This should keep PC off my back. )