Does Magic Exist?

[MEBuckner]

Posted at 3:51:

The word games and philosphical dancing around is all they have to show us.

Posted at 3:53:

When I use a “charm, spell, or ritual” in order to “control an event in nature”, does this not include using a ritual to effect a change in my own life?

Hey, Czarcasm, you psychic or somethin’?

Ludovic: That’s an interesting point. Lots of fantasy writers have posited systems of “magic” which have “laws” (the “Law of Contagion” and so forth)–Randall Garrett’s “Lord Darcy” stories, L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt’s “Compleat Enchanter” stories, or Robert Heinlein’s novella Magic, Inc. all spring to mind.

Lois McMaster Bujold commented about writing fantasy stories instead of science fiction:

I wanted to go back to the actual historical roots and have the magic work the way the people at the time thought it worked…Of course they thought magic worked like magic. One of the things I discovered very quickly was that the modern reader demands that magic work like physics. They want magic to work logically; they want cause and effect; they want conservation principles: that you can only get as much out as you put into it. For the twentieth century reader you need this physics-like magic for it to convince them that the magic is real. They don’t want the magic to work like magic, which was really frustrating because it cut me off from my historical model.

At any rate, the question is if the stuff exists, whether or not the stuff is in principle amenable to being “scientized” and analyzed and reduced to basic principles which are repeatable.

[Mercutio]

*Originally posted by Czarcasm *
Can you , or anyone, defy how we think we know the world works?

I think that it is arrogant of those who said no to believe that we know how everything works. We don’t. I doubt that we ever will. So, is it possible for something to defy how we think we know the world works? Of course. Go back a couple of hundred years with a pocket light and you’d blow people’s minds.

It is completely possible.

[Sagasumono]

Well,my particular belief is that if the concept of something exist then it also A.Does exist or B.Has the ability to exist,(though prehaps not in the form thought of.)

Every single culture and language has a word wihich definition translates into the using of supernatural powers. either by the invocation of a deity or of ones own power. Therefore I do beleive these forces do exist.

I beleive in our modern world owever,which has the spirit of “Thomas” I.E those like goboy who deny the existence of things not seen. As MEbuckler just said (or quoted) people now want things like magic,faith,God to be proven or worked out by Physics. They figure if these things exis they shoud be able to be proven beyond logic.

[system]

*Originally posted by Sagasumono *
Well,my particular belief is that if the concept of something exist then it also A.Does exist or B.Has the ability to exist,(though prehaps not in the form thought of.)

And your belief is wrong.

Every single culture and language has a word wihich definition translates into the using of supernatural powers. either by the invocation of a deity or of ones own power. Therefore I do beleive these forces do exist.

And the logical problems with this are legion. What this proves is that human beings have common conceptual structures and desires. It in no way supports the idea that supernatural powers must have existed.

I beleive in our modern world owever,which has the spirit of “Thomas” I.E those like goboy who deny the existence of things not seen. As MEbuckler just said (or quoted) people now want things like magic,faith,God to be proven or worked out by Physics. They figure if these things exis they shoud be able to be proven beyond logic.

It’s called science, and by extension the scientific method, the sole method of analysis which has lead to sustained material progress.

[MEBuckner]

So, Sagasumono, if something can be described in words, it must exist? How about “The Great Sino-Aztec Atomic War of A.D. 107?”

I would also point out that I can easily imagine things which are verifiable and even repeatable but are not and would never be explicable. Let’s suppose that you’ve got Jesus Christ in a laboratory somewhere, and he’s in a mellow mood and willing to perform a few tricks on command. (Hey, he was willing to do it for the Apostle Thomas, why not for the 21st Century Scientific Community?)

So, we get a nice tank of distilled water, zero in a battery of scientific instruments on it (mass spectrometers and what-not), and then, presto, Jesus does his thing and you have a nice tank full of really good wine. Now, if Jesus is really just a space alien from an advanced supercivilization from another galaxy or something, we might expect to see something which would give us a clue as to what’s going on–a radiation signature, some sort of transition over time (“okay, at time t, it’s pure water; then at t+1, we see a trace of ethanol, and so forth until, at t+n, we’ve got a really good chardonnay with with fresh, spicy aromas and crisp, fruity flavors and just a hint of turpentine”). On the other hand, if he’s God, and is doing this because, fundamentally, the entire Universe exists by an act of his will in the first place, then you wouldn’t really expect to ever see anything like that. One minute, you’ve got water. The next minute, you’ve got wine. One femtosecond, it’s all water; the next femtosecond, poof, it’s wine. No unusual readings on the Geiger counter, no neutrinos, no thermal signature, no nothing. Just, “Hey, J.C., do that again!” “Okey-dokey.” “Well, I’ll be damned–uh, I mean, not literally, right, Big Guy?”

[Amedeus]

*Originally posted by Mercutio *
I think that it is arrogant of those who said no to believe that we know how everything works. We don’t. I doubt that we ever will. So, is it possible for something to defy how we think we know the world works? Of course. Go back a couple of hundred years with a pocket light and you’d blow people’s minds.

It is completely possible. **

True, science does not know everything. Unfortunately, magic cannot be replicated. One of the rules of the universe is that its rules apply everywhere. And that if something occured once, It CAN be replicated over and over again. Magic just simply does not hold up to the test. If it did, then we would be searching for an answer, knowing full well that magic did exist. You cannot say some force we have yet to discover causes something that CANNOT be proven to work time and time again, has yet to be discovered, because Cause of force does not exist. (I really hope I didn’t fumble the explination)

[SPOOFE]

For the sake of discussion, let’s rule out anything and everything to do with Quantum Physics. First off, there’s no conceivable way in which a human can control a quark, and second, there’s no conceivable way for this to produce a macro effect.

Magic: Levitation, telepathy, clairvoyance, teleportation, summoning a fucking fireball to smite thy enemies for all I care.

As far as I’m concerned, “magic” is simply a collectible card game.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Czarcasm *
Maybe I, and so many thousands of others through the years, are tired of the semantic games played whenever this question is asked. Maybe a straight answer to a very simple question would be appreciated.

Well, if you ever ask a straight question, perhaps you’ll get a straight answer. Such questions as “Is it possible to make a round square”, “Is it possible to have an invisible green ball” and “Is it possible to use rituals to make impossible things happen” cannot help but provoke derision. If it is possible to do something, then it’s not supernatural, so it’s not magic. So no, magic is not possible. If you ask a silly question, don’t blame others for pointing out that it is silly. I really don’t understand why people not only make this completely aritrary and completely undefined distinction between “natural” and “supernatural”, but then get annoyed when others reject this distinction, as if humanity has some obligation to organize its concepts around their biases. The only semantic game being played is the pretense that there is some obvious difference between the natural and the supernatural.

[MEBuckner]

So, if Jesus is standing there cranking out liter after liter of wine from water, we either say “Oh, that’s impossible”, no matter how many people have seen him do it and confirmed that he’s really doing it by however many tests; or “Oh yes, well now we see how you’re doing it” and then pop over to the lab and whip up our very own aquavinoizer?

[SPOOFE]

Calvin: “Dad, how does a light bulb work?”
Dad: “Magic.”

I guess one argument can be said that the “Magic” is what the ignorant call phenomena that they can’t explain. Unless you’re a Star Trek officer, in which case, all the unexplainables are identified as “Quantum Shiftings” or the like.

[Scylla]

Yes, and I’ll prove it.

::fans deck::

Pick a card, any card.

[Mercutio]

*Originally posted by Amedeus *
**

*Originally posted by Mercutio *
I think that it is arrogant of those who said no to believe that we know how everything works. We don’t. I doubt that we ever will. So, is it possible for something to defy how we think we know the world works? Of course. Go back a couple of hundred years with a pocket light and you’d blow people’s minds.

It is completely possible. **

You cannot say some force we have yet to discover causes something that CANNOT be proven to work time and time again, has yet to be discovered, because Cause of force does not exist. (I really hope I didn’t fumble the explination) **

Just because something cannot be proven, does not mean something can be proven wrong. My whole point is, we don’t know enough. To our knowledge, no, magic does not exist. It could, though.

[Amedeus]

*Originally posted by Mercutio *
Just because something cannot be proven, does not mean something can be proven wrong. My whole point is, we don’t know enough. To our knowledge, no, magic does not exist. It could, though. **

If you want to believe that, then that is fine. However, you are getting out of the range of evidence and facts, and spiralling into the realm of Philosophy. You can banter back and forth with somebody endlessly on this subject without getting any ground if you stick to semantics. Sort of like arguing that tired argument of if you are just a brain in a jar. Its old, boring, and PROVES nothing.

[MEBuckner]

Just because something cannot be proven, does not mean something can be proven wrong. My whole point is, we don’t know enough. To our knowledge, no, magic does not exist. It could, though.

A number of these claims of magical powers, paranormal abilities, and supernatural events have been tested repeatedly and found wanting, though. And, conversely, we have developed explanatory structures for the universe which seem to work very well in predicting events under a wide range of conditions, and which would seem to rule out a lot of this stuff.

In other words, don’t bet the farm on it.

[ryoushi]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
For the sake of discussion, let’s rule out anything and everything to do with Quantum Physics. First off, there’s no conceivable way in which a human can control a quark, and second, there’s no conceivable way for this to produce a macro effect.

My quantum physics post before was a joke [sub](ok, not a very good one)[/sub] about why none of these magic(k)al effects seem to work whilst being tested in labs…

You’re right though. Moving quarks around won’t do much, even if anyone could do it.

[Czarcasm]

Does anyone else besides The Ryan not understand the premise of this thread?
Can you do Magic?
Do you know anyone who can do Magic?
Could you show us a good example of Magic?

This is the last time I’m playing this stupid game of runaround. I’m ignoring the next person who tries to defend their beliefs by pretending not to understand what I am looking for.

[Sagasumono]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**

*Originally posted by Sagasumono *
Well,my particular belief is that if the concept of something exist then it also A.Does exist or B.Has the ability to exist,(though prehaps not in the form thought of.)

And your belief is wrong.

According to you. And who are you? God? Naw…so let’s move on.

(Probably next reply "No others beleive you are worng too) and? Just because you feel I am wrong dosen’t automaticlly prove you to be right.) Anyway I stand by that beleif.

Every single culture and language has a word wihich definition translates into the using of supernatural powers. either by the invocation of a deity or of ones own power. Therefore I do beleive these forces do exist.

And the logical problems with this are legion. What this proves is that human beings have common conceptual structures and desires. It in no way supports the idea that supernatural powers must have existed.

heck I say they still exist. And explain your “legion” fallacy. To me it does support,instead of sayingjust saying that “all humans have concept structures and desires”

I beleive in our modern world owever,which has the spirit of “Thomas” I.E those like goboy who deny the existence of things not seen. As MEbuckler just said (or quoted) people now want things like magic,faith,God to be proven or worked out by Physics. They figure if these things exis they shoud be able to be proven beyond logic.

It’s called science, and by extension the scientific method, the sole method of analysis which has lead to sustained material progress.
**

---

And when this scientific method is then replaced,then what? Also was it not people that came up with this “Method” therefore isin’t it designed to work as a spell would?

[Sagasumono]

*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
**So, Sagasumono, if something can be described in words, it must exist? How about “The Great Sino-Aztec Atomic War of A.D. 107?”

Heck you missed my point. Didn’t mean it as literal being brought to light. However through the magic of lights,camera and action,yes you can have a Sino-Aztec war of A.D 1o7. Works for Anime. Like I said if the concept exis it can be made,thogh prehaps not in literal form.

I would also point out that I can easily imagine things which are verifiable and even repeatable but are not and would never be explicable. Let’s suppose that you’ve got Jesus Christ in a laboratory somewhere, and he’s in a mellow mood and willing to perform a few tricks on command. (Hey, he was willing to do it for the Apostle Thomas, why not for the 21st Century Scientific Community?)

So, we get a nice tank of distilled water, zero in a battery of scientific instruments on it (mass spectrometers and what-not), and then, presto, Jesus does his thing and you have a nice tank full of really good wine. Now, if Jesus is really just a space alien from an advanced supercivilization from another galaxy or something, we might expect to see something which would give us a clue as to what’s going on–a radiation signature, some sort of transition over time (“okay, at time t, it’s pure water; then at t+1, we see a trace of ethanol, and so forth until, at t+n, we’ve got a really good chardonnay with with fresh, spicy aromas and crisp, fruity flavors and just a hint of turpentine”). On the other hand, if he’s God, and is doing this because, fundamentally, the entire Universe exists by an act of his will in the first place, then you wouldn’t really expect to ever see anything like that. One minute, you’ve got water. The next minute, you’ve got wine. One femtosecond, it’s all water; the next femtosecond, poof, it’s wine. No unusual readings on the Geiger counter, no neutrinos, no thermal signature, no nothing. Just, “Hey, J.C., do that again!” “Okey-dokey.” “Well, I’ll be damned–uh, I mean, not literally, right, Big Guy?” **

---

I’ll just smile at this

[system]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sagasumono *
**

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**

*Originally posted by Sagasumono *
Well,my particular belief is that if the concept of something exist then it also A.Does exist or B.Has the ability to exist,(though prehaps not in the form thought of.)

Returning to your belief, it is entirely illogical. As MEB mentioned, your belief appears to be that if something has been thought of it must exist. What basis is there for such an idea? Dragons and all kinds of funky things have been thought of, and all physical evidence indicates they do not nor did they ever exist. Hand-waving about dinosaurs aside, as the concepts appear independent of fossils and the like.

For example, the concept maggots spontaneously, magically generated in meats existed. We know of course that is not so. By your apparent belief system it must have been true.

Every single culture and language has a word wihich definition translates into the using of supernatural powers. either by the invocation of a deity or of ones own power. Therefore I do beleive these forces do exist.

And the logical problems with this are legion. What this proves is that human beings have common conceptual structures and desires. It in no way supports the idea that supernatural powers must have existed.

heck I say they still exist. And explain your “legion” fallacy. To me it does support,instead of sayingjust saying that “all humans have concept structures and desires”

There is no logical reason to believe because a concept existed that means there must have been some truth to it. None.

By the way, you did not get the quote right, I stated that humans have common conceptual structures and desires. Expanding on this, mental function is conditioned by brain structure, and insofar as this is shared throughout the species, one may expect commonalities in terms of analytical errors arising from that. E.g. tendency to overread causation, tendency towards fallacy of composition etc.

Indeed among the legion of fallacies behind your belief here is the fallacy of composition. While there is no doubt some belief in magic exists – i.e. some words to describe phenomena beyond everyday neolithic joe’s capacity to explain directly – across cultures, there is no reason to conclude they all (a) are the same order of phenomena (b) go beyond the simple truth of striving to explain the world outside of our direct control. By inappropriately collapsing what are without doubt quite different conceptions you create the mental illusion of an over-arching phenomena without any genuine support.

And when this scientific method is then replaced,then what?

Why would it be replaced? It is simply a rigorous approach to testing hypotheses.

Also was it not people that came up with this “Method” therefore isin’t it designed to work as a spell would?

What??? Good lord no.

Excuse me, I have to go thump my head against a desk.
All we are talking about is the rigorous observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena followed by the formulation of a hypothesis to explain the same then the testing of the said hypothesis through reproducable experiments.

These discussions are even more depressing than genetics and race discussions.

[SPOOFE]

Is it just me, or have the last three posts been so horribly screwy with the parsing and coding that you can’t make heads or tales of who’s supposed to be saying what?

{quote} and {/quote} are your FRIENDS, people!!!