does magic even fictionally exist?

Originally posted by Mindship

This strikes me as an isolated differentiation. I was always under the impression that Marvel saw them as different, too.

Maybe not. In Marvel there is a tendency for people with hi-tech to have some degree of understanding of magic and even an ability to manipulate it to some degree. In DC scientists tend to be completely in the dark and magic has a tendency to completely override hi-tech.

I'm just going to throw out there "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."

In the Anime series Magic Knight Rayearth, Magic was merely another form of energy that this one group had the technology to be able to detect.

Words like Magic and Supernatural are semantic identifiers to inherently exclude them from the normal realm of possability.

By the very nature of the word supernatural, anything labeled as such does not exist. But that's not to say that certain things can't be improperly labeled due to a lack of understanding of the nature of the designated "supernatural" phenomenon.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm just going to throw out there "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."

I'm glad I came back to check on this thread. I'm almost ready to start using Loki in an example to say why I don't think 'magic' exists, but a lot of the replies reflect that whoever posted has sort of an understanding of where I am coming from with my initial question.

I think it really depends on what you define as "technology", if it's only defined as the manipulation advancement you get from applying science technology is clearly not the same as magic. Science is method and magic uses another method. If you use the word technology to define the advancement made by any kind of human thought, then magic would be a kind of technology anyways.

Bottomline, this is a semantics discussion.

Originally posted by Jynocidus
Yeah, this is on the right track. I guess what I'm trying to say is...most magic should be called mysticism. The various acts of Mysticism are nothing more than a way to access abilities, skills, attributes, and/or conditions that in one way or another several cosmic beings of varying potentials are or have been capable of, in which you do not possess or are incapable of replicating. The way to access the many gifts of ‘Mysticism’ should be unique, will always vary, and be dependent on the creativity of the writer(s).

Isn't this just subsistuting one ambiguous term for another - it doesn't really answer the question ....

Originally posted by Creshosk

By the very nature of the word supernatural, anything labeled as such does not exist. But that's not to say that certain things can't be improperly labeled due to a lack of understanding of the nature of the designated "supernatural" phenomenon.

Exactly, its not that supernatural entities cannot exits, its just a fallacy to label anything as "supernatural". Talking about the Supernatural, is litrerally meaningless, unless in a sense of it being a possibility.

"That which we cannot speak of, we should be silent about "

Wittgenstien.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Exactly, its not that supernatural entities cannot exits, its just a fallacy to label anything as "supernatural". Talking about the Supernatural, is litrerally meaningless, unless in a sense of it being a possibility.

"That which we cannot speak of, we should be silent about "

Wittgenstien.

It's a good point but to an extent it seems a little silly because this argument could possibly be applied to anything. You could also argue there is no such thing as superhuman.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
"That which we cannot speak of, we should be silent about "

Wittgenstien.

"Also, my name is Wittgenstein, not Wittgenstien. Like in beer stein."

- Wittgenstein

Originally posted by Deadline
It's a good point but to an extent it seems a little silly because this argument could possibly be applied to anything. You could also argue there is no such thing as superhuman.

Superhuman Adj.
: Beyond ordinary or normal human ability, power, or experience

Since it draws a direct comparison to what is considered normal for humans it doesn't automatically exclude itself.

Supernatural Adj.
: Adj. 1. supernatural - not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings"
unreal - lacking in reality or substance or genuineness; not corresponding to acknowledged facts or criteria; "ghosts and other unreal entities"; "unreal propaganda serving as news"
natural - existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; "a perfectly natural explanation"

By the definition of Supernatural it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not really.

Superhuman Adj.
: Beyond ordinary or normal human ability, power, or experience

Since it draws a direct comparison to what is considered normal for humans it doesn't automatically exclude itself.

Supernatural Adj.
: Adj. 1. supernatural - [b]not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings"
unreal - lacking in reality or substance or genuineness; not corresponding to acknowledged facts or criteria; "ghosts and other unreal entities"; "unreal propaganda serving as news"
natural - existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; "a perfectly natural explanation"

By the definition of Supernatural it doesn't exist. [/B]

Hume uses a very simillar semantic argument, to try and prove that Miracles are impossible by definition.

Originally posted by Deadline
It's a good point but to an extent it seems a little silly because this argument could possibly be applied to anything. You could also argue there is no such thing as superhuman.

No, it only applies, when the subject/entity is nature. I.e. the existential qunatifier if applied to "nature" .

I.e. there is something, and that something is nature.

The problem forms because anything subject/entity, that we percieve, or can possibly percieve, is semantically regarded as "natural" as soon as it is percieved.

So its impossible the percieve and therefore talk about anything beyond nature.

I really think the only difference is how fruity it looks.

I'm refering to the idea of magic just being advanced tech. Another def of supernatural is something that seems to break the laws of nature.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'm refering to the idea of magic just being advanced tech. Another def of supernatural is something that seems to break the laws of nature.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm just going to throw out there "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."

In the Anime series Magic Knight Rayearth, Magic was merely another form of energy that this one group had the technology to be able to detect.

I'm talking about this part of your post. Here you are saying that magic is just a highier form of science, so it's not really magic it's just more advanced.

I'm saying you could say a similar thing with superhuman ie it's not really superhuman it's just not obtainable by most people.

Interestingly enough though I guess you could argue that just the fact that superhumans exists means they aren't superhuman but thats just me adding this point now.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'm talking about this part of your post. Here you are saying that magic is just a highier form of science, so it's not really magic it's just more advanced.

I'm saying you could say a similar thing with superhuman ie it's not really superhuman it's just not obtainable by most people.

Interestingly enough though I guess you could argue that just the fact that superhumans exists means they aren't superhuman but thats just me adding this point now.

But as usual, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Ok let's try again.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm just going to throw out there "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."

Originally posted by Galan007
In general, I agree with this statement. A good "for instance" is the 5th dimensional science/technology Imps utilize -- it's so advanced that lower dimensional beings can only perceive it as 'magic'... There is simply no other way to describe it.

Does this help?

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok let's try again.

Does this help?

If you were to take a flashlight into the medieval ages they'd think it was magic.

It's not that magic is an advanced science, its that the technology can appear to be magic.

interesting responses. Considering I drove myself crazy trying to define magic...I can sort of relate to a lot of the posts. Or at least comprehend. At this point in time I don't think it's really a debate either. 'Magic' or however you interpret it is a very complex plot device where ever it's used.

And real life...I dunno. Like Cartesian Doubt said, that's one way to look at it. It all depends, though...