Do You Pine for the Age of Magic?

[Skyweir]

Now as to magic......

... I pine only for a thing that never existed in the first place (if such a thing an be done) - there never were sylvian glades surrounded by giant trees, emerald grass bespeckled with diminutive flowers of yellow, blue and the palest of green. But in my old foolishness I briefly wished that it had been so......

Ok to the heart of it ... I feel mildly vindicated on re reading this.

Pete those things you describe not only DID exist, they still exist. When I was a child I played in amongst Sylvian glades, adventured along wee becks and streams that meandered there way through rich meadows. Picked flowers of yellow and blue hues. Made daisy chains .. and looked for magical creatures as a child does.

I didnt enjoy these in built up urban centres .. I found them on the outskirts of villages and hamlets and in great open spaces. Raised in small villages along the English Scottish Borders. And I have it on good authority that not much has changed in those parts.

The magic is still.

[Fist and Faith]

I think he is saying that no time, past or present or future, is any less wonderful or magical than any other, but are only new forms of the same essence. But I will wait and see what he says.

There you go. We are in the Age of Magic.

That was from A Wizard of Earthsea. Here's more, from Dragonfly.

"What brought you here, Azver?" the Namer asked. "I've often thought of asking you. A long, long way to come. And you have no wizards in the Kargish lands."

"No. But we have the things wizardry is made of. Water, stones, trees, words..."

"How do you know what name to say, Rose? Does the water tell you?"

The witch shook her iron-grey head once. "I can't tell you." Her "can't" did not mean "won't." Dragonfly waited. "It's the power, like I said. It comes just so." Rose stopped her spinning and looked up with one eye at a cloud in the west; the other looked a little northward of the sky. "You're there in the water, together, you and the child. You take away the child-name. People may go on using that name for a use-name, but it's not her name, nor ever was. So now she's not a child, and she has no name. So then you wait. In the water there. You open your mind up, like. Like opening the doors of a house to the wind. So it comes. Your tongue speaks it, the name. Your breath makes it. You give it to that child, the breath, the name. You can't think of it. You let it come to you. It must come through you and the water to her it belongs to. That's the power, the way it works. It's all like that. It's not a thing you do. You have to know how to let it do. That's all the mastery."

"Mages can do more than that," the girl said after a while.

"Nobody can do more than that," said Rose.

[wayfriend]

We are in the Age of Magic.

... but how can we distinguish whether we're in the Age of Magic or the Age of Sufficiently Advanced Technology?

[Fist and Faith]

I'll have to ponder that...

[Vraith]

I think he is saying that no time, past or present or future, is any less wonderful or magical than any other, but are only new forms of the same essence. But I will wait and see what he says.

There you go. We are in the Age of Magic.

Agreed---we are in an age of "magic."
Disagreed [wf] that all ages are equally magical. Now is more "magical" than the past [with some natural variations]---and if we don't totally fuck it up, the future will be more "magical" than now [with some ups and downs].

Why quotes on "magic?"

cuz this quote:


... but how can we distinguish whether we're in the Age of Magic or the Age of Sufficiently Advanced Technology?

I wish never existed. [[or wasn't shifted from context and misused every damn time]]. [[[I'm pretty sure wf means this humorously...hence tonguey...but it is a peeve of mine how often it is taken as actual, wise, descriptive]]]
It's total crap except in particular, and wholly metaphorical, sense.
The two are only indistinguishable IF the distinguisher is ignorant/cares about NOTHING BUT the final "appearance."
"Real" magic works IN CONTRADICTION to reality.
Tech works BECAUSE OF reality.
Both may be able to pull a rabbit out of a hat and shock the audience...and if all you care about it the end result of rabbit out of hat, fine...they're "indistinguishable." [[[except they utterly are not]]].

[wayfriend]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Clark's Third Law

I wish never existed. [[or wasn't shifted from context and misused every damn time]].

Now, I've always assumed "sufficiently advanced" means "advanced far beyond that of which the distinguisher is knowledgable". It is, after all, a quote about alien or future technology that a sci-fi author writes about, not about technology with which one is familiar.

Supposedly it derives from another adage, "Witchcraft to the ignorant, _ simple science to the learned". Which, perhaps, encapsulates this point far better.

But, yes, I was being cheeky. I would never be tonguey -- ever!

But then again, who now understands the technology of our own time? Does it not seem magical to most of us by now, although we would rather call it "rocket science" or "geek stuff" or other terms?

Does not the experience of speaking to your friend on another continent while flying to the other coast and looking down at the clouds convey any awe and wonder which would satisfy any peter?

[Zarathustra]

I've always thought of magic as somewhat similar to "doing the impossible," which, as Vraith says, is doing something in contradiction to reality. But the list of things that we once thought of as impossible is steadily shrinking, due to science. So there is "impossible in practice" and "impossible in principle." At one point, it was literally impossible for man to fly or go to the moon. But that didn't keep people from dreaming of flight and space travel. The technology that would transform this into "possible in practice" (e.g. wings or rockets) was easily imaginable, and had humans seen either of these at almost any time in our history, it wouldn't have seemed like magic. Show a man a rocket or airplane in 500 B.C. and he probably would still think of this a machine, not magic.

However, there are some things that seem so hard to solve, or some solutions that are sufficiently advanced, that they wouldn't look like technology or machines, but rather magic. Time travel, faster than light travel, bringing back the dead, etc.

The power of Clarke's quote doesn't rely upon our naivete, but rather the unlimited potential of our power to discover as well as the unlimited scope of the world's mystery. I don't read it as an indictment upon us "primitive" humans--it's not a gloating, snarky condescension about how easily humans are fooled--but rather a simultaneous acknowledgement of the infinite potential of the universe to amaze us as well as our ability to explore it.

You can never know for sure the difference between "impossible in practice" and "impossible in principle." Again, not because we're too stupid, but because of the infinite scope of nature's mystery + the infinite scope of explanations.

Or, another way to say it, as Fist and Faith is saying: the world is both magical and explicable.

[Skyweir]

Brilliant post Z

Though I see from you and V a reasonable pragmatism.

I particularly liked Fistys quotes about the magical appreciation of basic elements of existence, Stone and Sea my terms .. but the essential element of water, wind etc

Tolkien interchanges brilliantly the concepts of magic and beauty.. which enables the appreciation of the arguably ethereal qualities of nature. The sense of fulfilment one can acquire from walking through Sylvania glades, admiring the nobility of an eagle in flight, be filled with the exhilaration of climbing a mountain peak and beholding the world below from a height.

Wayfriends comment about flying and the awe of passing through and above the clouds. Of course scientific exploits realised these human achievements.. and it is still magical. Science magic

The natural world enables these discoveries .. but more than that .. is the therapeutic power inherent in the natural world. The benefits of animals to human health is scientifically proven now. The therapeutic benefit of the natural environment to human health is too.

That is magic .. meaning there is magic still and it can be found.. not just in man made achievements but in the purest, simplest elements of life.

[Skyweir]

I think he is saying that no time, past or present or future, is any less wonderful or magical than any other, but are only new forms of the same essence. But I will wait and see what he says.

There you go. We are in the Age of Magic.

Agreed---we are in an age of "magic."
Disagreed [wf] that all ages are equally magical. Now is more "magical" than the past [with some natural variations]---and if we don't totally fuck it up, the future will be more "magical" than now [with some ups and downs].

Why quotes on "magic?"

cuz this quote:


... but how can we distinguish whether we're in the Age of Magic or the Age of Sufficiently Advanced Technology?

I wish never existed. [[or wasn't shifted from context and misused every damn time]]. [[[I'm pretty sure wf means this humorously...hence tonguey...but it is a peeve of mine how often it is taken as actual, wise, descriptive]]]
It's total crap except in particular, and wholly metaphorical, sense.
The two are only indistinguishable IF the distinguisher is ignorant/cares about NOTHING BUT the final "appearance."
"Real" magic works IN CONTRADICTION to reality.
Tech works BECAUSE OF reality.
Both may be able to pull a rabbit out of a hat and shock the audience...and if all you care about it the end result of rabbit out of hat, fine...they're "indistinguishable." [[[except they utterly are not]]].

Im not sure this is correct. Im not sure that today is more magical than the past Is your only reason for this assertion, modern technology?

And which past? What age are we today more magical than? Is your perspective of magic solely tied up with scientific attainments? Nothing wrong with that at all ... but it disregards the beauty, awe and magic that exists beyond technology. And I think that IS the point.

There is magic in technological advancements and beyond human reach and manipulation.

But perhaps the USE of the word magic is insufficiently clear. The age of magic .. as a term is more clear and can more readily be applied the The age of man ... or The Age of Technology even

But if you apply the concept of magic .. as say Tolkien used it ... it is literally interchangeable with natural beauty.. the natural beauty observed and ... felt, experienced in natural elements.

Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend such magic when one is remotely located from it. If ones life for the most part is an indoor life, where living is within four walls, within expansive urban settlements.

Humans by virtue of their ability to manipulate the natural world and constructing man made high density settlements .. effectively remove themselves from the natural world, from its magic and its beauty... and in its scientifically proven therapeutic capabilities.

[Vraith]

Heh...it's weird how often I post something expecting much response getting none, and then whip out a thing that I'm sure will get zero, and suddenly folk have things to say.

Anyway,

WF---who now understands the technology of our own time?

true...but magic and science are still different in kind. One guy somehow creates a rabbit in a hat out of nowhere...the other simply confounds your brain/observational powers. One is comprehensible [at least potentially] the other isn't.

Z---You can never know for sure the difference between "impossible in practice" and "impossible in principle."

Mostly agree...it's true [probably] that there will always be hard cases. BUT, connected to that---and as I've said in the close before---one cannot prove that any and all God are impossible. But it can be shown [and it's not even hard] that all the ones people have described so far are false/non-existent. Same with magic. Maybe the future will reveal new things that lead to some God/Magic...but the trend line right now is strongly and harshly restricting the possibility of [and the powers of] those. IF...IF...some God/Magic is revealed/discovered, it will be a completely different KIND---fundamentally incompatible with all previous conceptions [both religious AND physical conceptions]

SKY---Im not sure that today is more magical than the past Is your only reason for this assertion, modern technology?


Today definitely IS more magical [in the metaphorical sense of magic, of course. "Real" magic is right out.] And no, it's not only modern tech---though tech is attached to most of it if you include things like {there are viruses/bacteria, wash your hands/use prophylactics.} as tech.

This is the real reason, though:
Nearly every experience available in the past that could be called "magical" is STILL available TODAY.
Not only available, but MORE available to MORE people---and not just more people in raw numbers, but a MUCH larger percentage of the people than ever before.
On top of that an enormous number of wishes/dreams/fantasies of the past...things people thought of but couldn't experience [I think Z mentioned flight...someone did], AND things that no one EVER thought of...these things are available [[some to only a few, for now at least, but some available to pretty much anyone pretty much any time]].

One [I think the main/important] reason that is the case [other than simple "there weren't planes"] is that MOST of what people actually mean by "Magic" is a subjective experience---a particular kind/integration across senses and mental domains...stimulating the raw somatic, emotional/social, and higher rational/aesthetic as a "set" or "process."
People are generally the same, so broad contexts/rules can cluster people/experiences as 'magic.' That's, roughly, culture. BUT people are also unique---and every bit of this magic is particular.
Thanks to empathy/mirror neurons, sometimes a pair or group can "share" an actual magical incident...even then each has there differences in experience.

You're right about one thing for sure, though...people need to get out into nature more. Thing is, it doesn't take the hard [[and soon to be totally unnecessary thanks to AI and Bots]] life of a farmer or whatever.
It doesn't take a week or two wandering the desert alone [or nearly so] far from society and machines---though I absolutely recommend such a thing for everyone at least once in their lives....if you haven't done something like that you're only partly a person....it just requires some green space, breathing, and a small amount of time.

[wayfriend]

WF---who now understands the technology of our own time?
true...but magic and science are still different in kind. One guy somehow creates a rabbit in a hat out of nowhere...the other simply confounds your brain/observational powers.

I disagree with this. Because if you don't know how technology works, you can't "know" it isn't magic. It's inexplicable to you. The only thing you have going for you is the conviction that magic doesn't exist and science does. At best you "believe" it isn't magic, and you "believe" it is science.

And if you don't know how it works, you certainly can't be noticing whether or not it contradicts physical laws or conforms to it. You're putting the cart before the horse - first you need to know how it works.

If you believed in magic and science, how could you tell them apart before you understood the mechanisms?

The wonders of technology are certainly every bit as real as the wonder of any eldritch world. That feeling of awe, that discernment of beauty, that sensation of significance, do not depend IN ANY WAY on the mechanisms which produce the wonders. They depend only on the results, and on your attitude and your predisposition when you observe them. Looking on Hoover Dam is every bit the spectacle of looking on Niagara Falls. The streets of Manhattan are as awe-inspiring as the redwoods of California.

One day, technology may be advanced by AI, and it can reach the point where humans NEED NOT understand how it works in order to use it. Think on that! If that's not "indistinguishable from magic", I do not know what is.

[Vraith]

dvanced by AI, and it can reach the point where humans NEED NOT understand how it works in order to use it.

Now THAT's the best point so far in this thread...and something we've [[I think you were involved??]] discussed elsewhere.

The infant stages of that already exist...the teen/tweens are about 5 years AT MOST [I think, it could be much closer] away.

We've already had [partial list, top of my head---many more exist]

AI that crush any human at several of our hardest games---and we don't know WHY the AI's made many moves [[so far, most, we can crack in hindsight...for now]]

Mathematical proofs that humans THINK are probably right---but checking it is difficult for MANY people together...and impossible for any one person. [[I think at least one of them is uncheckable period. Only another, and better/faster computer could check it...and there are dozens of problems with THAT kind of fact check/proving.]]

There are literally a half dozen [probably more since last I looked] AI that are better at spotting and diagnosing people than any doctor [and several doctors combined],,,and in all but one of those machines, people don't know HOW they did it...just THAT they did it, and they were right way the fuck more and wrong hellafuck less than the Doctors. [[At the moment, these were all for specific, not general "wellness." Again...5 years or less, anyone who trusts a Dr. is an idiot.

A lot more out there that even I'm aware of...at least an order of magnitude or two probably that I just haven't seen or are being hidden on purpose.

[Zarathustra]

If we take V's definition of "magic" as "in contradiction to reality," then we know that something isn't magic because magic is literally impossible. I think this is why he doesn't like Clarke's quote. You can always distinguish magic and technology--even before you know how it works--because one exists and the other does not.

As I noted earlier, we can't ever really say (preemptively) what phenomena are impossible in principle. Therefore, we have no criteria by which to say, "if x, then magic." All we can really say for sure is that if it exists, it's possible. And if it's possible, it's not magic, because it's not in contradiction to reality.

Therefore, the absence of an explanation never puts technology and magic at equal probabilities, because magic is impossible whereas technology is not.

Of course, you could always define magic differently. Maybe "supernatural," instead of "in contradiction to reality," so that our conception of reality expands to include more than nature. But if it's occurring in nature, how would we tell the difference? It is at least possible that anything in nature has a natural explanation. For us to say that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from the supernatural would also mean that any unexplained natural phenomenon might with equal probability have either a supernatural origin or a natural explanation. But since no lack of an explanation can ever prove a supernatural origin (because that lack could always be temporary), this isn't really an equal probability. If you can never prove a supernatural origin because a natural explanation is always possible, then you really have no grounds to say that a supernatural origin is possible at all (much less equal). Determining that something is within the realm of possibility is the same as determining the scope of reality. [E.g. It's possible that an asteroid could strike the earth tomorrow because reality is the kind of place where asteroids strike the earth.] If something has not yet proven to be real, then you can't say it's possible. You can't ever eliminate the possibility of a natural explanation because we know that natural explanations exist and they continue to advance our knowledge into the unknown. However, we have never shown anything to be supernatural, therefore we have no basis to say that it's something within the realm of possibility.

So, yeah, I'm going with Vraith on this one. Clarke was wrong. All my points in the previous post about reality being both magical and explicable have to be understood as having scare quotes around "magic."

[Skyweir]

Very well argued Z

But there are is another option besides magic being contradictory to reality .. er go magic is not real .. or magic is supernatural .. Er go also not real.

There is magic equates to reality .. Er go magic is real. Noting that Pete was reminiscing Tolkiens creation .. and therefore Tolkiens view of magic equates with natural beauty.. which can be seen in this world Er go real.

We extended that perspective to include man made beauty and achievements, science magic lol etc.

And yes V .. I agree absolutely that immersing oneself at some point in time, in rivers, mountains, forrests, plains, deserts, oceans natural beauty. Its magic

[Fist and Faith]

Plenty of magic stories involve calling on higher powers. Say the right words/draw the right symbols, and some being appears and does something for you. What if the words/symbols are a way of communicating with another dimension? I mean, who's to say there cannot be communication with another dimension? And the beings in that dimension can send power through that connection. Or maybe the other dimension is entirely composed of some energy, which leaks through when the connection is made. Learning the words or symbols that somehow breach the barrier would be the work of a mage.


But come on, what if? Do we know that there are no other dimensions? Do we know that we cannot send information between them? Someone could even come to understand that the words, or symbols, or patterns of movements, set up vibrations in the extra dimensions of strings - which are only theorized at this point - and that's how the barrier is breached. So everything is rational and comprehensible. So now that person works for a lifetime, and refines and expenses the system of spells. That person, the greatest of mages, could also be the greatest of physicists.

So it's no longer magic?

[Vraith]

So now that person works for a lifetime, and refines and expenses the system of spells. That person, the greatest of mages, could also be the greatest of physicists.

So it's no longer magic?

Piers Anthony "Incarnations" series. Depending on ones preferences is reading them Science is a kind of Magic or Magic is a kind of Science, the Supernatural is just expanded Natural, or a subset/side branch included in the Natural.
Pretty sure he even labels magic as a fundamental force, and describes it in those terms...

[[In fact, I THINK that Newton, after changing science/math forever, goes on and codifies the rules/practice of magic. Though maybe that's in something else by someone else. Been a while.]]

[Skyweir]

Yay! Magic .. its real and its everywhere

[Fist and Faith]

Yeah? I only ever read the first few Xanth books.

[Vraith]

Yeah? I only ever read the first few Xanth books.

The Incarnation books [[especially 1, 5, 6--Death, Nature, Devil]] and a standalone not connected to anything called Macroscope are pretty much the only Anthony I like much.

[Rawedge Rim]

Oh I don't know. Sub-atomic physics are now telling me that an object can exist in two different places in the same time, that an affect can precede a cause, etc.


sounds like the FM principal to me.