Arthur: Atianashie Miracle
(CLARKE’S THREE LAWS)
v When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that
something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
v The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is
to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
v Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic.
In my eyes, this statement, while basically true, shows a
misconception of what magic is—and a misconception that is shared by many
others, at that.
My starting point would simply be to ask: How is magic and technology
defined?
Both are somewhat vague concepts, but the definition of
magic typically includes something along the lines of “paranormal”, “not
explainable by science”, or similar—effectively creating a division that
technology (and/or science) and magic are the natural respectively supernatural
equivalents: An aero plane is technology, because the way it flies can be
explained within the realms of the natural laws; a (hypothetical) flying carpet
would be magic, because it draws on the supernatural.
This, however, just obfuscates the issue: We are now left
with the discussion of what is natural and supernatural (normal and paranormal,
whatnot).
My take is: Magic is a phenomenon that is yet to be
explained by science. In other words, the only difference between technology
and magic, is that the one is something that we understand today; the other
something that we do not yet understand, but eventually will.
TO ILLUSTRATE: Imagine that the
ancient Egyptians had had some remarkable break-through in magic, somehow
managing to generate artificial light by inducing magical, invisible particles
to pass through fine threads of copper. The secret was lost, and as time went
past this feat became considered a myth of low credibility—only believed by a
minority group of supernatural experimenters, alchemists, and the like. Come
the modern era, electricity, and first predecessors of the light-bulb... The
minority is vindicated, magic does exist, and magicians, not electricians,
become an invaluable group of professionals.
This scenario differs from reality on one single basic
count: The Egyptians had no such break-through (and it would indeed have taken
either an amazing feat or an extraordinary piece of good luck for it to
happen).
An apparent counter-example: Science may one day be able
to deliver a flying carpet; however, for one to have existed in the days of
Aladdin, magic would have been needed. Not quite: There were, in fact, no
flying carpets back then (and likely no Aladdin, for that matter), which makes
a world of difference. A flying carpet that does not exist is, ipso facto, not
magical, not flying, nor even a carpet. Assume, however, for the sake of
argument that flying carpets did exist: What would make them magical? Is there
any reason to expect that their flying ability would not be explainable (as
opposed to “already explained”) by science? I hold that given the existence of
a flying carpet there would almost certainly be a scientific explanation to be
found; hypothetically, that the carpets contained cavoritew. Similarly, that
science has failed to find an explanation for e.g. ESP is unremarkable and
uninteresting, because there is no true indication that ESP actually exists;
only if its existence can be proved, and science fails to come up with an
explanation over a pro-longed period of time, can the possibility of something
truly paranormal be taken into account.
Notably, much of what we today would consider primitive
technology, medicine, or similar, was once considered magic by many—including
such mundane things as smiting. Equally notable is that even (attempts at)
magic that did not actually work has historically often been put into systems
of rules that are basically scientific (by the standards of the day; not,
obviously, by modern criteria), and usually followed a logical pattern (cf.
e.g. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/bough11h.htme).
Similarly, alchemy, which is usually considered either magic or related to
magic today, was one of the most scientific fields that had ever existed until
the modern sciences entered the field—and chemistry, a highly respectable
science, is arguably a special case of alchemy (as the Christian religion is arguably
a special case of the Jewish: had the Jews/Alchemist been completely swallowed
by the Christians/Chemists in a comparatively short time period, there might
have been very little distinction made). Similar statements apply to e.g.
astrology and astronomy.
Currently, I see only one possible case of magic that
could fall outside of technology/science with a non-negligible probability: Use
of magic formula, prayers, or similar, to make demons, gods, or other
“magical” creatures perform acts. Even here, however, the problem would likely
be more of semantics and definitions, even provided that this scenario is not
hypothetical: A higher being acting in the world will likely use mechanisms
explainable by science, or an extension of science to a greater or other
universe; further, the actual formulae would likely be scientifically
investigate and explainable. The one issue would be whether the mechanisms
used by the higher beings were inherently inexplicable by the means of this
world. (Such a scenario could likely be constructed in theory by assuming that
this universe is run as computer simulation in another universe, and
considering Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.) It is further disputable whether
this should be considered magic at all (although some historical justification
can be found), and not rather religion: Certainly, the current major Christian
churches would react as negatively the accusation of magic, as would a chemist
to the accusation of alchemy.
An important observation, that some non-scientist may be
imperfectly aware of, is that even the phenomena that fall solidly into what is
typically considered technology, are imperfectly explained by science,
including e.g. electricity. Further, it is quite possible that trying to
explain these is like plumbing a bottomless hole: It can be plumbed to a
greater and greater depth, possibly even an arbitrarily large depth, but a
bottom cannot be found; a “x because of y” can be amended with a “y because of
z.”, “z because of z1.”, etc. but a terminal “z [high number] because.” may
never be found.
RECOMMENDATION
A final issue: The word “magic” can be traced to the
Proto-Indoeuropean root “*magh” (“to be able, have power”), which is also the
root of “machine”. (Cf. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=magice,respectively,
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=machinee.)
