Tech Based Magic: Sufficiently Analyzed Magic

[Purple]

I would. Because quite honestly I don't feel the need to argue over spelling as long as it does not disturb my capability to read the text.

To each their own then. To me it brings me out of the story and smacks of a lack of effort and polish, to you it's just there and if the story is cool you'll keep reading. Nobody's wrong in this case.

I can't argue with that logic I guess.

Purple I dunno where you're from but tbh misspelling does create an issue for me as I'm not a native speaker for english so when the spelling gets "creative" it's harder for me to guess what the actual meaning intended was, that said I'm fairly good at english so if it resembles the actual word I might able to get it right but we cannot assume that from everyone here.

English is as far as you can get from my native language short of stuff like Chinese. But I newer had a problem understanding or reading it when written down strangely. It's probably not for this thread but the phenomenon of people who can't always perplexed me.

[Vendetta]

I think we should be less concerned with the spelling and more with why everything Corvus posts is "Mass Effect with the serial numbers filed off".

Because this is basically "biotics from Mass Effect, but not using the actual words".

[Purple]

Now there is a good point. But I would like to add an additional "on steroids." Because that's a part of it as well. Quite frankly if something like that were to exist I do not feel it could coexist with a normal looking setting. There is just too much power not to cause sweeping social changes that would make the setting unrecognizable to us.

[NecronLord]

Corvus 501, find and use a real spell-checker, it's not hard.

[cmdrjones]

Sorta OT: I used to play a character like this in a table top role playing game called a Nega-psychic who explained everything supernatural in pseudo-scientific terms.... His psychic power was the power of DIS-belief to the point that it shut off supervillains powers. His partner was an Iron man-esque super suit pilot. Tl;Dr : We broke the game after trashing too many villains.

OTOH: Am i the only one who would like to see a Corvus mad lib thread?

[jwl]

The main difference between tech and magic is not what you do, but how you do it. In tech, if you want to heat something up, you put electricity through a resistor or something. In magic, you draw a pentagram on the floor. If someone is doing a time-stop with TK that's great, but in, say, Bernard's Watch, that's clearly not how it is meant to work.

[Vendetta]

The only reasonable distinction I can think of is that magic must, in some fashion, rely on the practitioner.

If anyone can do it by repeating the right sequence of actions or using the right tools, it's technology not magic.

If the sequence of actions and tools only work for the right person, then it's magic.

[biostem]

Just thought I'd mention - there's an Anime I watched recently called "The Irregular at magic Highschool" which went with the premise that magic is the manipulation of previously unknown particles to achieve effects, and they have been able, in that setting, to automate a portion of the magical process, so most practitioners carry a device much like a PDA, which aids in casting - definitely a worthwhile watch IMO.

That being said, I tend to think of magic as any method which brings about some desired effect and which violates the laws of physics in so doing.

To use a previous example - drawing a series of runes on the ground to start a fire would *not* be considered magic if the key is the material you use to draw said runes, and that it's a matter of the friction generated in the process, (with the runes simply being a means to make sure you measured out the proper amount of the material, and the general shape serving to facilitate the ignition process.

Continuing the above example - let's say I could simply measure out a sufficient quantity of this substance, then just drag it along the ground in any closed shape, (like a circle), and produce the same effect - That wouldn't be magic IMO.

[Purple]

Thing is, if magic is repeatable in any way shape or form (as in you can do the same spell multiple times by doing the same thing over and over again) than by definition it has physical laws of its own. And in a setting where such magic exists would such laws not be a part of what they consider physical laws?

[Simon_Jester]

Physical laws are impersonal and reductionist, though- which is where Vendetta's description comes in.

Typically, you can call it 'magic' if:

1) It doesn't follow impersonal laws- it is personal. As in, it works differently when an elf says the magic words than when a human does. Or if a human thinking "I want a ham sandwich" leads to no ham sandwich, but a god thinking the same thing leads to ham sandwiches.

2) It doesn't follow reductionist laws- you cannot understand a magical system by taking it apart into smaller pieces and observing the interactions between the pieces, until you get to an irreducible 'atom' of magic. If the smallest 'atom' of magic is, for example, the living will of the magician, and that will cannot be subdivided into parts that play different roles in making magic work... that's not reductionist.

3) Its effects are described reliably in teleological or informal terms, but not reliably and consistently in terms of physical structure or makeup.

For example, if "enchanting the blade" always makes the blade cut well, regardless of what is being cut or what the blade is made of... that's probably magic. Because cutting through wood efficiently requires a serrated edge, cutting through a material that is corrosive might require a blade made of certain metals, whereas cutting through steel requires a very special set of material properties, and so on.

When we use technology to accomplish "make the blade cut well," we get different blades specialized for different tasks. When we use magic, we're more likely to get a blade that is 'superior' in some broad teleological sense: everything a blade does, it does better, regardless of how or why it does so.

[Corvus 501]

Physical laws are impersonal and reductionist, though- which is where Vendetta's description comes in.

Typically, you can call it 'magic' if:

1) It doesn't follow impersonal laws- it is personal. As in, it works differently when an elf says the magic words than when a human does. Or if a human thinking "I want a ham sandwich" leads to no ham sandwich, but a god thinking the same thing leads to ham sandwiches.

2) It doesn't follow reductionist laws- you cannot understand a magical system by taking it apart into smaller pieces and observing the interactions between the pieces, until you get to an irreducible 'atom' of magic. If the smallest 'atom' of magic is, for example, the living will of the magician, and that will cannot be subdivided into parts that play different roles in making magic work... that's not reductionist.

3) Its effects are described reliably in teleological or informal terms, but not reliably and consistently in terms of physical structure or makeup.

For example, if "enchanting the blade" always makes the blade cut well, regardless of what is being cut or what the blade is made of... that's probably magic. Because cutting through wood efficiently requires a serrated edge, cutting through a material that is corrosive might require a blade made of certain metals, whereas cutting through steel requires a very special set of material properties, and so on.

When we use technology to accomplish "make the blade cut well," we get different blades specialized for different tasks. When we use magic, we're more likely to get a blade that is 'superior' in some broad teleological sense: everything a blade does, it does better, regardless of how or why it does so.

Why can't magic simply be the title that a series of explainable abilities that can be used to cause dramatic changes biased on an individual's will? The concept of magic probably predates tool use, and may have even inspired the invention of tools, and the idea's stuck around.
With the concept of magic so so ingrained in the human culture, that whenever something like biotics shows up in fiction, it's described as "magic". In fact, many times when a radical new technology shows up, it is sometimes described as being "like magic". Even if the explanation is commonly known, people may very well continue to call it magic, albeit sarcastically.

[Corvus 501]

Kinesis and stasis, two wholly tech biased ability from Dead Space are good examples of the low end of the abilities that I am thinking of. In the game, the abilities are generated from modules mounted on the arm and shoulders. What I am thinking of is having the basic unit just be a neural interface, with a mixture of implanted and suit mounted modules providing the actual impulses to move the actual objects, or their constituent particles.

[Simon_Jester]

And, yes... what of it? I mean, what's the plan? Where do you go from there?

Also, bear in mind that the same technology will have applications other than "bolt it onto a suit of armor." You might see machinery that runs on 'telekinetic' action-at-a-distance, for example.

Why can't magic simply be the title that a series of explainable abilities that can be used to cause dramatic changes biased on an individual's will? The concept of magic probably predates tool use, and may have even inspired the invention of tools, and the idea's stuck around.

With the concept of magic so so ingrained in the human culture, that whenever something like biotics shows up in fiction, it's described as "magic". In fact, many times when a radical new technology shows up, it is sometimes described as being "like magic". Even if the explanation is commonly known, people may very well continue to call it magic, albeit sarcastically.

I'm not saying people won't colloquially call it 'magic.' I'm saying that for purposes of classifying fiction, the distinction between a tool and an act of magic is rather clear-cut.