Magic isn't magic? · 7:16pm Mar 21st, 2013
Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law famously states, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The popular illustration of this idea is the hypothetical situation in which a modern-day layman travels back in time to, say, medieval Europe. Our time traveler then approaches a native of that time period and reveals a modern device, such as a Game Boy (rather than a cellphone, which relies on modern infrastructure to operate properly). The man of the past, lacking the relevant knowledge and historical context to understand how this technology came about, would conclude that supernatural forces were at work, and likely burn the time traveler at the stake or somesuch[1]. But what if we flip things around?
To the modern world, which we like to think of as having abandoned superstition in favor of reason and science, I posit that magic wouldn't look like magic at all. After all, the corollary to Clarke's Third Law is that magic should appear the same as advanced technology. Were we to come across, say, Twilight Sparkle, we would dismiss her claims of "magic unicorn powers" and conclude that she's simply utilizing some as-yet unknown biological mechanism for conscious manipulation of, I don't know, electromagnetic fields or something. The details don't matter; what's important is that we wouldn't call it "magic".
Even more interestingly, I don't think that magic as it's commonly imagined could ever exist. A quick Google search for a definition of magic gives: "The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." The word I'd like to focus on here is "supernatural", or "beyond the laws of reality". To our eyes, then, magic as shown in MLP:FiM certainly fits that definition, as it behaves in defiance of Earthly physics.
Look at it from the eyes of a pony, however, and the situation becomes radically different. One-third of the population[2] are born with the ability to use magic at will. Their entire society is ruled by a pair of deities[3] and predicated on the magic of friendship. Magic is a fact of life. Therefore, perhaps counter-intuitively, it doesn't exist at all. It's no longer "supernatural"; for a pony in MLP:FiM, magic is as fundamentally real as magnetism is to us.
I once read[4] that the only difference between science and magic is repeatability. If anyone can do it, given the proper tools and training; if it follows rules; if it explains things, it isn't magic. Why, then, do all the ponies refer to it as such? For that matter, how can any well-ordered[5] universe have magic at all? As soon as it's consistent and ordered, then it fails to be magic and becomes science instead.
[1]: This allegory, funnily enough, neatly demonstrates quite a lot of our modern bias. We immediately deride the man of the past for believing in silly things like witches and magic, yet those were widely accepted as fact for much of human history. Men then were just as intelligent as men now, but as technology advanced, so too did (and still do) the accepted conceptions of how the world works.
[2]: Two-thirds if you count pegasi as using magic (I do, for reasons I'll explain in a later post), and 100% if earth ponies do as well (same).
[3]: Whether or not they're actual goddesses is another topic I could devote a blog post to.
[4]: I'm pretty sure it was in one of the Science of Discworld books, which you should read, if you haven't already.
[5]: Take, for example, The Dresden Files. In one of the short stories (to avoid spoilers, I won't say which), the side character who is the focus of the story explains that anyone can use magic, it's just that wizards are born with a sense for it (a vanilla mortal trying to learn magic is likened to a blind person learning to write; there's no feedback). Granted, it's a bit more complicated than that in the Dresdenverse. Even if only wizards could use magic, though, the fact remains that the overarching rules of magic are the same for everyone (importantly, even nonhumans have to obey the rules), so it's no longer supernatural. Similarly, Harry Potter magic has rules and can be taught/learned, if you're born a wizard. Even in the Discworld books, magic is fundamental.
Though I'm not quite as familiar with The Lord of the Rings, I believe it might actually be an exception. Game of Thrones magic may or may not qualify as well, given that its presence in the books is sort of vague and never explained. Given that maesters can be recognized for studying it, though, I'm inclined to think that it has rules.
There was this one series of stories set in a universe, i can't remember the name, where the rules of magic remained the same only as long as nobody tried to actually understand them and turn them into science.
This would mean, for example, that the incantation for a fireball would always be the same as long as nobody tries to find out why it works like it does. If anyone does try, magic shifts and fireballs become impossible until someone stumbles on the new spell.
Would that be more along the lines of "true" magic in the definition of the word?
I was so tempted to blab endlessly about my magic system, which since it was designed with alternate universes in mind works fine with MLP, but I'll try to focus on the point here. "Magic" may not be the most perfect term but it gets the idea across best so it's used. it's the exact opposite of normal matter in that it can't be traditionally measured or examined, but living creatures can detect it and influence via emotion and thought. It's purpose is to stop the heat death of the universe and does this by subverting the traditional laws of physics. It's actually in every universe, it's just so "thin" in some that you can't do anything with it.
Magic isn't the opposite of science, it's the opposite of physics, since science is a method that can study anything. Magic does have rules, but they're very different, and emotions as well as countless other things can effect things, including distant planets, days of the week, or even the majority of a planet's population opinion of how romantic a certain flower is. In other words the universe may be built of math, but magic is manipulating it on a language level, with more abstract concepts. Specific universes have various rules, for that matter some rules of physics vary between them, but there are similarities. Thus spell casting experience on one world is not entirely different, even if the systems seem to have nothing in common.
Finally while they oppose each other, they are also uncaring forces of the universe, so thinking beings can easily use them together to great effect. Why build a heat sink when you can just enchant the computer not to overheat?
937341
This, really, is the crux of my argument. Using "magic" as a descriptive term only makes sense when viewed from an outside perspective. It's for our convenience as a viewer, rather than theirs as characters.
In the rest of your comment, you seem to have a very specific system of magic in mind, which is fine, but I was really making a more general statement. Not all depictions of magic use language, for example (heck, MLP almost never uses incantations). So, while I appreciate the feedback, I'm not really sure it's appropriate.
Why enchant the computer not to overheat when you can just build a heat sink? You're making the assumption here that magic is intrinsically "better" than technology in every way, when I've rarely seen a case where that's accurate.
937017
That seems like a completely unworkable system. Knowing man's natural inquisitiveness, any given spell would only be good for a week, tops, and you'd never actually be able to catch up if you weren't constantly listening out for whatever the new incantation is. What if you tried to understand why magic keeps changing? That is, after all, a rule in this system; the only rule, in fact.
In answer to your question, though, I really don't know. Without having read the book/series you're referring to, I can only guess blindly.
937494 First why heat sinks are a good example. Heat sinks are one of the main things holding computers back right now. Drawing off the heat fast enough is very tricky. Magic can just eliminate it meaning it's really superior for this, as it is for some things, and the mix of magic and traditional technology is very powerful. This would also cause tech to be really uneven in places, since magic is just better for some things. Which very much would fit with MLP.
As to the main point, magic is just a word. To use an explanation from one character, M particles, which really aren't particles at all, are the power source for all magic, and depending on the universe can be manipulated various ways. Another character uses the term mana for it and this really bugs the first character terribly. Words come from all sorts of places, and evolve to best fit the scenario. In other words if Twilight showed up with all her abilities intact, and then we figured out how a biological organism could do all that without any additional tools, we'd still call it magic no matter how well the scientists explained how it actually worked. This is because we already have view of what magic is, and even if it's inaccurate, most people would still call it magic.
Finally while I certainly drifted from the point, there was a reason I mentioned my own magic system. The idea is that magic is both counter and part of the universe. It breaks the laws of the universe those that don't have it can't, but allows some to go beyond what is possible. Cheat codes for the universe. Magic results aren't entirely reproducable, because the whole point is you're breaking the rules. Introducing just enough pure chaos to get what you want. Magic isn't the most perfect term, but that doesn't mean it isn't the best, and anything else is complicating matters needlessly.