Manhattan vs Reeve’s Superman vs Thor vs Silver Surfer

Originally posted by Lestov16
When you're dealing with a quantum field or physical laws that warps matter, energy, and spacetime in ways that none of our nomological physical laws/quantum fields do, whether it is called "wizardry", "intrinistic fields", "The Force", "Power Cosmic", etc., it's all technically "magic", because "Magic", in it's basest definition, is "the science of alternate physical laws". There's really no difference between Surfer's Power Cosmic, Harry's Wand, or, Pinhead's chains (in terms of the nature of their powers, not power levels). It is all an alternative physical law affecting matter and energy.

Indeed. You get it.

This is something I've conceded long ago in this thread (that the power cosmic is no different than magic).

Originally posted by quanchi112
The definition proves you wrong. You don't understand the definition and everyone is in here trying to explain it to you. That is the problem you just don't grasp it.

Bleh. With this guy, after 5+ years of dealing with him, it's impossible to get him to admit he was wrong about something. I think I got him to admit he was wrong about something, once. Just once. It was for something stupid so it didn't actually constitute anything worth having him finally concede something. After you've made your points with this guy, if he goes into rage circle mode, just ignore him or just repost your arguments. He may be better with insults than Epicurus but he's much much worse at arguing than Epicurus.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
come up with some new lines, daclownshoes.

if the warp engines from star trek are proven impossible, it's still scifi. not magic. you dimwitted retard.

Really, if you want to boil it down, any superpowers, science, or tech in fiction that can not be obtained through our objective reality's science/quantum fields/physical laws (up to and including warp drives) qualifies as "magic". That is pretty much the very definition of magic.

Oh, and to repeat myself, I believe Doc wins this. He has no exploitable weakness unlike the rest of them.

Here is one common definition of magic: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

By this definition you can call many of things that happen in the superhero world magic. However, that does not mean it is the correct term. You have to look at the context of the author as to whether he is implying magic or science in the fiction universe his characters dwell in.

Originally posted by Kotor3
You have to look at the context of the author as to whether he is implying magic or science

this is precisely what i was trying to say with my point on star trek warp engines.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Bleh. With this guy, after 5+ years of dealing with him, it's impossible to get him to admit he was wrong about something. I think I got him to admit he was wrong about something, once. Just once. It was for something stupid so it didn't actually constitute anything worth having him finally concede something. After you've made your points with this guy, if he goes into rage circle mode, just ignore him or just repost your arguments. He may be better with insults than Epicurus but he's much much worse at arguing than Epicurus.

obvious butthurt f@ggotry. pick up the phone and give your girl quan a call and have a good cry together.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Here is one common definition of magic: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

By this definition you can call many of things that happen in the superhero world magic. However, that does not mean it is the correct term. You have to look at the context of the author as to whether he is implying magic or science in the fiction universe his characters dwell in.

I guess you could look at it that way if you want to. I've just always believed that magic is just science that doesn't correlate with our science but produces physical effects.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I guess you could look at it that way if you want to. I've just always believed that magic is just science that doesn't correlate with our science but produces physical effects.

not in the context of a story. in this case, it's up to alan more to decide whether doc's powers are rooted in science or magic, assuming he didnt already make this clear.

To me, magic is just science practiced by people who don't have particle accelerators to actually examine the quanta of the magical fields they're generating. They have no knowledge of the scientific facts of their powers (every physical occurrence, whether "natural" or "magical", can be studied under some field of science), so they just write it off as "magic" or "the gods". Same way that people of ancient times believed divine beings were responsible for natural weather phenomenon. Magic is just science beyond our understanding. By that same gesture, science is magic we do understand.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
this is precisely what i was trying to say with my point on star trek warp engines.

obvious butthurt f@ggotry. pick up the phone and give your girl quan a call and have a good cry together.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Here is one common definition of magic: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

By this definition you can call many of things that happen in the superhero world magic. However, that does not mean it is the correct term. You have to look at the context of the author as to whether he is implying magic or science in the fiction universe his characters dwell in.

Since Manhattan's control over the four fundamental forces is a supernatural power (part of what makes him Godlike), it's the very definition of magic.

Silver Surfer's abilities are similar but not quite the same because they were never defined as literally changing how the four fundamental forces work. The former is transmutation (within science and something we are working on doing, now (changing photons into matter...we can do the opposite) and the latter is godlike supernatural powers.

But, yes, supernatural exertion over the natural is the very definition of what constitutes "magic."

Originally posted by quanchi112
Everyone is laughing in your face about how you don't understand the simple definition of magic and your response is for the other guy to go have a cry. You are one delusional, sad human being.

It's why I'm not responding to that post. He has nothing qualitative to add to the discussion, currently. Kotor3 is continuing to maturely engage us in discussion so he gets the same respect. When focus4chumps is done throwing his shit-fit, he can come back and receive mature discussion. There are ways to deal with trolls and forum babies without the need of mods if the normal posters are mature and intelligent about their approach. I say no one else respond to his drivel until he acts more like an adult instead of a trantrum-throwing child. 👆

Originally posted by Lestov16
To me, magic is just science practiced by people who don't have particle accelerators to actually examine the quanta of the magical fields they're generating.

i too expressed this "magic is subjective to the knowledge of the observer" point. in a real-world context i wholeheartedly agree. again, if you gave an ipad to someone from the 1800's, they would swear it's magic.

however we are dealing with fiction. in fiction, it's up to the author to decide how "magic" is defined.

if you were writing your own fiction, you would be free to define "magic" however you please in your mythos.

in gene roddenberry's universe, it's pretty much all rooted in science regardless of how magical phenomena first appear. YET much of that science has been debunked, so does that make star trek suddenly fantasy and not scifi?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i too expressed this "magic is subjective to the knowledge of the observer" point. in a real-world context i wholeheartedly agree. again, if you gave an ipad to someone from the 1800's, they would swear it's magic.

however we are dealing with fiction. in fiction, it's up to the author to decide how "magic" is defined.

if you were writing your own fiction, you would be free to define "magic" however you please in your mythos.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i too expressed this "magic is subjective to the knowledge of the observer" point. in a real-world context i wholeheartedly agree. again, if you gave an ipad to someone from the 1800's, they would swear it's magic.

however we are dealing with fiction. in fiction, it's up to the author to decide how "magic" is defined.

if you were writing your own fiction, you would be free to define "magic" however you please in your mythos.

Ahh, finally, a normal response that is free of the petty childishness.

To address your post, see my previous posts which already rebut the content of your above post. Namely, an iPad would not be magic because it is not supernatural (appearing to be magic is not the same point we are making and I think you know that). Dr. Manhattan's powers are supernatural.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ahh, finally, a normal response that is free of the petty childishness.

To address your post, see my previous posts which already rebut the content of your above post. Namely, an iPad would not be magic because it is not supernatural (appearing to be magic is not the same point we are making and I think you know that). Dr. Manhattan's powers are supernatural.

i respond to people who are not on an obvious butthurt agenda, cuclownshoes

your girl quan is waiting by the phone. hurry.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ahh, finally, a normal response that is free of the petty childishness.

To address your post, see my previous posts which already rebut the content of your above post. Namely, an iPad would not be magic because it is not supernatural (appearing to be magic is not the same point we are making and I think you know that). Dr. Manhattan's powers are supernatural.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i respond to people who are not on an obvious butthurt agenda, cuclownshoes

your girl quan is waiting by the phone. hurry.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i too expressed this "magic is subjective to the knowledge of the observer" point. in a real-world context i wholeheartedly agree. again, if you gave an ipad to someone from the 1800's, they would swear it's magic.

however we are dealing with fiction. in fiction, it's up to the author to decide how "magic" is defined.

if you were writing your own fiction, you would be free to define "magic" however you please in your mythos.

in gene roddenberry's universe, it's pretty much all rooted in science regardless of how magical phenomena first appear. YET much of that science has been debunked, so does that make star trek suddenly fantasy and not scifi?

Authors may believe they're coming up with different forms of magic, but in objective reality, they're just coming up with alternate physical laws. The only difference between scifi powers and fantasy magic is that scifi desires to explain how their essentially magical powers correlate with our science, whereas fantasy characters do not know of our science, and thus do not explain how their magic defies it, instead merely simplifying it as...well...magic. Fantasy authors may not address this, but it because they are not thinking about it in those terms. If in HP, humans started capturing wizards, experimenting on them, and writing down quantum statistics about it, would you still consider it "magic"? Because it still is, it's just being explained outside a fantasy context.

"Magic" and "sci fi powers" are interchangeable. In other words, the "sufficiently advanced tech (or in this case, science)" clause is objectively absolute in all fiction, whether the fiction is aware of it or not. The genre doesn't matter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since Manhattan's control over the four fundamental forces is a supernatural power (part of what makes him Godlike), it's the very definition of magic.

Silver Surfer's abilities are similar but not quite the same because they were never defined as literally changing how the four fundamental forces work. The former is transmutation (within science and something we are working on doing, now (changing photons into matter...we can do the opposite) and the latter is godlike supernatural powers.

But, yes, supernatural exertion over the natural is the very definition of what constitutes "magic."

I do not disagree with your comments above. Though you are using the term magic in a very general sense. To stay on topic I will stick with the characters within this thread.

From my knowledge of the characters, Superman and Manhattan powers came through scientific means whereas Surfer and Thor’s did not. However the powers they display can definitely be classified as magic.

In the fictional universe that they exist in are there powers classified as magic, I am not sure. I believe so.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
this is precisely what i was trying to say with my point on star trek warp engines.

Yes in the universe of star trek magic does not exist. The original author did a very good job leaving supernatural, gods, and evolution out of the stories. Only when he die did that enter in.

Evolution?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Authors may believe they're coming up with different forms of magic, but in objective reality, they're just coming up with alternate physical laws.

the only objective reality in fiction is the reality determined by the author.

Originally posted by Lestov16
The only difference between scifi powers and fantasy magic is that scifi desires to explain how their essentially magical powers correlate with our science

scifi doesnt need to explain. take the lightsaber for example. or the warp drive on the millennium falcon. or that anti-gravity devices in every star wars vehicle. no explanation given. none needed. it exists in george lucas' universe for no other reason than it's there and men are able to build them without the need for special powers.

Originally posted by Lestov16
whereas fantasy characters do not know of our science, and thus do not explain how their magic defies it, instead merely simplifying it as...well...magic. Fantasy authors may not address this, but it because they are not thinking about it in those terms. If in HP, humans started capturing wizards, experimenting on them, and writing down quantum statistics about it, would you still consider it "magic"? Because it still is, it's just being explained outside a fantasy context.

i would consider jk rowling's depiction of magic as just what you describe. so you are absolutely correct...in the context of harry potter.

Originally posted by Lestov16
"Magic" and "sci fi powers" are interchangeable. In other words, the "sufficiently advanced tech (or in this case, science)" clause is objectively absolute in all fiction, whether the fiction is aware of it or not. The genre doesn't matter.

in harry potter they are interchangeable. however you have no grounds to assert this for every authors' mythos.