Wow very well said. I never thought about it that way. Although I would not call soil/earth dirty. It is clean even it does not appear that way. Think of the sand it is very clean yet nothing grows out of it unlike the soil. In other word if it was dirty it would give nothing out.
You are right about that actually! I really meant dirty as in you can't eat it but if you do surely you will spit it back out! Haha. And you're right about the sand how interesting! These extraodinary events have become so ordinary we stop seeing the magic in it and look to invent our own fantasies.
It's completely dependent on how you define 'magic'. Sorcerers and wizards, no, but finding magic in the little things in life....sure.
The quote that I’m referring to is: “Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” — Arthur C. Clarke If we define magic as something that violates the laws of physics, then there is no possible way that we will find something like that. Whenever we discover something that violates those laws, we learn that the laws themselves are inaccurate, because observation has proven that they do not apply in a particular case. We then adjust the laws to account for our observations. So magic could simply be seen as that we observe, but do not yet understand. That makes the definition based on the person who is observing, so an aircraft to me might as well be magic, but to an aerospace engineer it’s science. If we use a definition like this, I think it still fits— Certain people (engineers, chemists, scientists — the modern day alchemists) can learn to manipulate these powers through studying ancient texts and whatnot. There’s the supernatural element, but again, anything that we observe is natural, so by a rigid definition there can be no supernatural by definition. Any concepts that are supernatural become natural as soon as we can verify their existence. If we think of supernatural as that which would seem impossible until someone does it, then yes, I’d say a lot of modern technology does fit that definition. The only real difference here is the user interface. A fantasy mage can form fire in her fingers, and an engineer can form fire in a flamethrower. As technology becomes more advanced, we’ll see these differences begin to fade. At what point can we build a device that lets us form fire in our fingers as if we were mages?
I reckon at that point it would no longer be seen as magic, any more than communicating via the internet is magic. It would be science/technology. It would not be a supernatural power. There is a lot of difference, I reckon, between constructing a fantasy world that deliberately contains 'magic,' and discovering things in our own world that we didn't know how to do before. Something hitherto impossible is now being done, and it may seem like 'magic,' or gets spoken about that way. It seems LIKE magic. But it's not magic. Is it?
Here we are still defining the word magic in terms where, by its own definition, it cannot exist. If we lived in a fantasy world with typical fantasy magic, then couldn’t we observe the use of that magic and write laws that describe how it functions? Couldn’t we harness that magic to build devices that repeatably leverage it for everyday convenience? And at that point, when magic is understood in its function and ubiquitous in everyday life, how is it different from science? Here we still see that the magic is only magic because it is yet to be understood. The medieval setting provides a world in which that magic is not yet used to its full potential. We might assume that the people living in that world would not study the magic scientifically, but is that really a safe assumption to make? There have been great scientists in every age of history. There would be scientists who try to truly understand how magic works, and how to harness it repeatably. What if the magic is so arcane that it defies understanding? Sounds like quantum physics to me. The problem is just harder in this case. That doesn’t mean that the magic can’t be studied. That doesn’t mean that basic laws can’t be written to describe its effects. Science is not a collection of things we know, but a method for understanding the world. It can be applied to anything.
You know the above couple posts have got me thinking. Our culture really has a problem appreciating the things we've mastered. It's almost like, in mastery, we've put ourselves above the things which would once completely confound and dazzle us. It's probably because we've decided to, more or less on an individual basis but certainly among the scientific community, do away with spirituality. We see everything as unalive. So some metal scraps put together don't seem that special even if it allows you to produce flame at will. Difference between magic and science, in some sense, is that that latter holds little to no reverence for what it studies. Then again, scientists tend to be very passionate about their fields. Still though, I think I'm on to something.
Magic? no. Not in that "classical" sense of the word (for example Harry Potter). But then what exactly is magic? If some alien came and showed us incredible technology far beyond our understanding then we may well just describe it as "magic". So I suppose it really depends on what you do consider magic. If that alien technology is magic to us and to them it is but standard technology, then it stands to reason that our technology today would be magic to someone from 5000BCE. Kind of circular, but the point is that it depends on what you do or don't consider magic.
Depends on your definition of magic. I personally subscribe to the version that gives a person a certain level of influence over certain forces, such as thermodynamics. We have household appliances that do that. Do I believe there is magic? Yes. Do I believe humans are capable of harnessing it? Probably not. Is there a being that can? Hell if I know. Couldn't be God, or things on earth would not be as bad as they are.
In the west I think we have a false idea of spirituality, or what I like to call 'L.A. Sprituality'. Which is where people partake in traditionally spiritual past times such as yoga, meditation and the like without a real understanding of the philosophies behind them, more because they are viewed as fashionable activities.
I think this conversation has evolved from "Do you believe in magic?" to "What is magic?" and "How would magic factor into modern society if it did exist?", which are both good questions, but draw away from the original inquiry of the OP.
True but the opening question basically elicits a yes/no response, which is far less interesting than the tangents it has opened up!
Yeah, I agree. When I think of 'magic', I think of Cinderella's fairytale godmother changing her pumpkin into a coach and vice versa. I assumed the OP was asking if we believe in that. I don't. But it's fun. As to whether amazing things are often discovered or created at some point in time, yeah, I believe in that.
Magic is an illusory concept, I don’t think we can just say yes/no we do or do not believe in it without saying which kind of magic that we do believe in. It can mean very different things to different people. The spiritual aspect is interesting here, and definitely another type of magic to think about. Something else that we can’t really put our finger on. There are all sorts of answers to that question, all the way down to what luck is. Whether the universe has any kind of divine irony. There are all sorts of perspectives here. On one hand spirituality usually means thinking at a higher level to things beyond this life. On the other hand, people who are not spiritual often put all of that focus onto the life they are living now. I don’t think we can say that either group is more or less reverent, just that they revere different things.
This went to defining because unlimited, undefined question leads answerers towards being misunderstood. I think "what is the level of abstraction here" is a valid inquiry with this kind of question. And so is "what is the outer limit of question".
To which I add LaTorre's Corollary: "Any sufficiently developed magic is indistinguishable from technology." (After once reading a very, very complicated ritual for summoning spirits)
I think you're right about definitions. I defined what I think is 'magic' when I was answering the original question. Definitions would make this discussion more interesting, actually. How do we, as writers and individuals, define the concept of 'magic?' Once we know how a person defines it, then that person's answers make sense. Even if we don't agree with either the definition or the answer. My Webster's gives three main definitions for the noun, 'magic' : 1) the use of charms, spells and rituals in seeking or pretending to cause or control events, or govern certain natural or supernatural forces; occultism 2) any mysterious, seemingly inexplicable or extraordinary power or quality (the magic of love, etc.) 3) the art or performing skill of producing baffling effects or illusions by sleight of hand or concealed apparatus Just out of interest: in Scotland, the word 'magic' is often used (as an exclamation—"Magic!") to express delight at something that has just happened, or the fact that a problem has just been solved, etc. This can be quite funny at times. Last time somebody said it to me was when I handed our electrician the cheque to pay for our rewiring project which he'd just completed. He said, "Magic!" Erm, well...naw. Savings!
No, I don't believe in magic. I view the unexplained phenomena as simply simply science we dont yet understand. This has been proven time and time again as understanding on a cosmic scale has grown. But that doesn't mean I hate the stories involving it. I do love fantasy works, I just dont believe any of them actually apply to real life in any more than a metaphorical or philosophical sense.
So many paths that this could take. But as a rule I am a realist, I don't even like the idea of using magic in my own writing even if I might need it in some cases. Think Arthur C Clarke's famous quote - that is how I like to use magic in story telling. And where magic comes into play it is explained in some sense as a biological or physiological capacity or ability. However there are many different definitions of the term that might change my answer to a more metapohical one.
Yes, I used to do tarot readings. I thought they worked. I used to go ghost hunting and I lived in a house I thought was haunted. Honestly, I'm probably just highly suggestible (if you want to be pseudo scientific). I can fall into altered states listening to music, see colors and auras, see auras on everything when I'm tired, and stuff like that. Anyway, I never had any sense that the tarot readings were fake. They sure seemed real. I don't believe magic or prayer helps in really concrete or big picture ways (problem of evil, where is god, magic cultures didn't take over the world, blah blah blah), but in terms of personal subjective experience, things certainly seem real.
Yes, I believe that there are forces, both evil and benign, which can do things and have done things that we humans would tag as magical because they temporarlly seem to nullify the laws of nature. I had a website telling me the numbers I was thinking a few years ago. To me that is supernatural. Scary as hell as well. That's why I got out of there and never went back.
In that case, everything is magic. Science doesn't really explain. It just describes. It does try to explain, that's true. It does this by posing questions and seeking answers to these questions. But as Isaac Asimov pointed out, any really good answer to a scientific question raises more questions of its own. He also once said that great scientific breakthroughs aren't usually accompanied by somebody shouting "Eureka!" More often, they're accompanied by a scientist looking over some test results and musing "That's odd..."
