No. But you’ll still have absolutely retarded morons trying to argue otherwise.

>>98863341
That's a funny image but what is the "not summoning demons" image actually of?

I have no idea what most of that shit is, but I do like to tease my friends that whenever they bring religion up, and I tell them people these days believe some pretty awesome shit by scientists anyway.

Can anyone elaborate what that stuff in the OP pic is anyway?

>>98863341
The fun is in the differing perceptions not the literalness of it. What is magic to one is not magic to another. This is the whole point of fiction in general. A goblin in one setting isn’t a goblin in another setting. A dragon in one setting is a literal demon in another. Sort of like how both whales and elephants are giants, but aren’t the same lifeform. A god is something godlike. It’s all giant-logic. “Is it big enough?”. “Is it cool enough?”. “Is it wonderful enough?”. Magic/fantasy is far more descriptive than it is definitive. Even in science fiction you have space elves (Vulcans) and wizards (mad scientists, alien sages, etc) by any other name(s). Science-fiction is a form of fantasy inherently. To the sufficiently educated physicist, Star Trek is straight up fantasy. The differing words and labels are superficial and do not matter. It all still has the shares the same damn essence.

>>98863361
Some careless idiot (“scientist”) opened a ball containing pure evil and then died the worst way imaginable.

>>98863341
A work of fantasy's magic is inherently seperate from its physics and science.

Also, the true, capital-w wizard won’t see themselves as such, not unless they go out of their way. They have a higher bar or consideration for magic than you. They push the limits (raise the bar) of what it means for something to be called, or considered, magic.

Marie Curie was a legitimate witch. Her diary (grimoire) is still radioactive to this day.

>>98863341
>Is it possible to separate [shit I made up] from science/physics
I do it all the time.
>Is it possible to separate Anon from his obnoxious need to be a pedant
Probably not

>>98863436
I’d argue it’s pedantic to hair split magic from nature.

>>98863439
It's boring to have a game where every type of attack does the same thing.

>>98863452
>fire does the same damage as cold
You are sadly a mental midget

>>98863439
From a gameplay perspective, not really. It's throwing the magic guys a bone every once in a while. Same with giving the guys who specialize in sneak a stealth section or the guy playing the party face a negotiation segment or someone to smoothtalk.

>>98863361
Demon core

>>98863363
The first one is self explanatory, the levitating apple as well.
The circuit is a Graetz bridge for converting AC to DC.
The top left runes is a mathematical relation that is used to derive the wave equation.
The differential equation is a Euler-Lagrange, important in classical Newtonian mechanics.
The gray picture is of a demon core, during early nuclear bomb development by Manhattan project it was involved in two fatal accidents.

I don't know what the fuck is the last thing. To me the color suggest it's is a nuclear reactor of sort - it's the color of Cherenkov radiation

>>98863461
Magical fire shouldn't act the same as natural fire, and magical cold shouldn't act the same as natural cold.
Don't complain about pedantry if you're going to commit it.

>>98863341
Is it possible to separate chemistry from physics?

>>98863341
This tired bait again? Im bored, get new material

>>98863361
>>98863363
Top left is uranium ore
Top right has a circuit diagram showing diodes(?) And some formulae. I dont recognize them, but the lower is a derivative and the upper is the formula for the rate of change of F
Bottom left is either a superconducting magnet or just a really finely tuned maglev circuit.
Bottom middle is a radioactive core. Some guy's hand slipped and it went critical for a moment and died of radiation a while later. It was called the demon core
The last one is chernekov radiation, its just high energy particles outside a reactor being slowed by water and releasing the energy as visible blue light

>>98863471
>>98863596
Thank you anons

>>98863596
What a trooper award.

>>98863341
Look up ultrapure water that we use to try to detect exotic particles and what it'll do to shit dropped in it.

>>98863341
Of course it is, magic runs on skeptical and/or revelatory epistemologies demanding knowledge be secretive while science runs on empiricist and rationalist epistemologies actively reliant upon the wide sharing of knowledge.

>>98863381
Shut up, wonderfag.

>>98863395
Not in any setting where "wizard" is a career-path defined by working with a discernably distinct category of forces, which the commonality of disproves your position because it relies on the assertion that ALL conceptions of "magic" adhere to your retarded reduction of a pileup of cultural contexts so different the word "magic" outright inverted in class connotations more than once.

>>98863439
Only because you insist on projecting a malformed monist cosmology into counterfactuals that are explicitly not monist. 40k has the "magic" operate on a fundamentally different paradigm often called unreal where objectivity of rules as UTTERLY required by large swaths of physics as we know them is trivially disproven and subjective emotions are a demonstrable power source.

>>98863982
You're taking the bait. Why are you taking the bait?

File: Demon Flail.png (122 KB, 620x824)

122 KB PNG

>>98863361
High level magic weapon component.

>>98863341
This thread always makes me a bit sad because clearly going to university to study physics or engineering is as unattainable a goal to OP as going to hogwarts and learning to cast levitate or whatever

>>98863341
I mean yea , but outside of your personal definition it won't work , becuase everyone seems to have their own definition of science.

>>98863341

Yes. It's called not being illiterate IRL.

>>98863341
Sure.
All it takes is playing games

>>98864713
LMAO

File: 1595768841658.jpg (1.18 MB, 3840x4293)

1.18 MB JPG

>>98863341
Why would you do that?

Lol

>>98863361
That, anon; a ball of Plutonium-Gallium Alloy and either Harry or Louis, who is about to fucking die.

>>98863982
>magic runs on skeptical and/or revelatory epistemologies demanding knowledge be secretive while science runs on empiricist and rationalist epistemologies actively reliant upon the wide sharing of knowledge.
That’s idiotic.

There’s a certain percentage among the scientific community/consensus that historical, obscurantist (“wizardly”) individuals like Leonardo Da Vinci weren’t “true scientists” since they didn’t share in their information, which was very much ahead of their contemporaries of the day.

This is an absolutely preposterous proposition. Individuals have done great science and come to groundbreaking conclusions in isolation.

Einstein saw science as a background symphony that plays its cosmic orchestra regardless of our ability or inability to listen in. It will play its eternal tune for all time, with or without us.

>>98863579
No, because fundamentally physics concerns itself with how the physical world functions (and describing it), and we can't experience any other world, even if it exists. So everything we can perceive and interact with is (part of) physics, in the end.

>>98863361
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh89h8FxNhQ
tl;dr a bunch of retards were playing around with a plutonium core sitting in two hemispheres acting as neutron reflectors. One of them accidentally dropped the top hemisphere, creating a criticality incident and flashing the scientists with a lethal dose of radiation.
Scientists have no common sense.

>>98863363
>>98863471
>>98863596
That last thing is something even cooler than C. Radiation. It’s this thing. Try to find a video of one turning on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-arc_valve

>>98863341
>Is it even possible to separate magic from science/physics
The difference is that science is generalizable. There is a single universal set of physical laws that are generally applicable in all normal circumstances, and understanding of those laws allows you to extrapolate things about as=yet unobserved phenomena.

Magic is anything that doesn't follow those rules but still works for unknown reasons. Why does drawing a particular occult circle on the ground and slitting a chicken's throat at its center bring about a particular effect? Who knows?

>>98866253
>That’s idiotic.
No, it is defining the two in relation to the back-end separating the bulk of historic "intellectual" discourse from the modern paradigm's particularities responsible for actually figuring shit out at an accelerating pace.

>There’s a certain percentage among the scientific community/consensus that historical, obscurantist (“wizardly”) individuals like Leonardo Da Vinci weren’t “true scientists” since they didn’t share in their information, which was very much ahead of their contemporaries of the day.
And? Why is it so important to you that obscurationism is a disqualifier for "proper" science?

>Individuals have done great science and come to groundbreaking conclusions in isolation.
But until it is shared, it does not add to the great web of understandings for others to build upon.

>Einstein
Had absolutely no education nor noteworthy achievements in any branch of philosophy relevant to what constitutes a useful definition of science.

>>98866456
And the implications of this for counterfactual other-worlds explicitly constructed to contradict what we experience are...

>>98863341
Or course it is.
But nerds have preferences and some prefer to not do that and will not so much as concede that other preferences even exist.

>>98866526
>Magic is anything that doesn't follow those rules but still works for unknown reasons. Why does drawing a particular occult circle on the ground and slitting a chicken's throat at its center bring about a particular effect? Who knows?
That’s just weird physics. That’s essentially what magic is. Weird is also relative. Could also be aliens.

>>98866529
Your presented logic assumes that people like Leonardo Da Vinci aren’t scientists. This is why I don’t take you seriously.

>>98866529
>But until it is shared, it does not add to the great web of understandings for others to build upon.
That doesn’t make it not science.

if I am wizard anons , can I call myself a scientist.

>>98866546
>Your presented logic assumes that people like Leonardo Da Vinci aren’t scientists. This is why I don’t take you seriously.
Why do Leonardo Da Vinci's intellectual achievements HAVE to fall under "science"?

>>98866548
Perhaps not for the "peer review"/replication study adherence, but rather a lot of these people were not experimentalists either.

“Reee you’re not a scientist if you don’t share it with me reee-“

Cope. The recent surge of mathematicians screeching and seething over AI stealing and completing their work means the future of science will consist of not!wizard guilds hoarding in their information and glaring at each other. They’ll be summoning AI to steal their rivals information.

China’s going to be pissed.

File: IMG_7084.jpg (560 KB, 1689x2560)

560 KB JPG

>>98866559
>Why do Leonardo Da Vinci's intellectual achievements HAVE to fall under "science"?
Are you fucking retarded LOL

>>98866559
>but rather a lot of these people were not experimentalists either
Da Vinci was a hardcode experimentalist. He built the most accurate model of the heart that couldn’t be topped for centuries.

It’s not his fault everyone else was so stupid and low iq.

>>98866556
Only the most brilliant and sagely scientists are allowed to be called wizards.

>>98863341
Science is the study of phenomena
Magic is just phenomena that has yet to be explained

>>98866586
They hate this explanation anon. They don’t want you to see everything mysterious or wonderful as magic, since that means literally anything could be seen as magic under a certain light.

>>98866589
it also means nothing can actually be magic.

>>98866583
but I wanna cast fireball irl anon.

>>98866610
It presumes that any amount of scientific studies will sufficiently explain a given phenomena.

>>98866615
and most importantly that any amount of magical insights and meditations won't be sufficient to explain a given phenomena.

otherwise you could be in a situation were both magic and science are correct at the same time.

that is what I mean anon that you asume nothing can actually be magic.

>>98866610
Not really? That’s so defeatist. It just means magic lies within the mind’s eye. It’s the chemistry in the brain. That feeling of awe and wonder. An appreciation for phenomena. Fear of the unknown, even.

If math was seen as magic for thousands of years, why not literally anything else?

>>98866589
There is beauty in the known and unknown alike.
Through science, we fold the as-yet-unknown into the known, and reveal beautiful intricacies that may never have even been imagined otherwise.
Diamond stars, intricate crystal lattices, the micro-patterns of a butterfly's wing. Wonders yet-dreamed, brought forward by rejecting the sanctity of mystery.

>>98866610
The universe is fucking magical anon. It started religion. Cavemen looking up to the night sky. Making stories.

>>98866619
it was SEEN as magic , but you clearly don't seem to think it was.


I think this perspective is maybe fine on its own , but if magic is just some cosmetic flavor change to existing.
what does it really mean now that people seem to think all wonder on life is inexistent because scientific discoveries and jobs.

if magic laks enough of a spine , it will just go extinct.
and no one will be able to buy your wonder.

>>98866568
>author of "the tao of physics", which draws parallels between Eastern mysticism and modern physics
Not giving good vibes here.

>known for pushing obtuse cosmology framework that never saw an experimental prediction, fell out of favor with quarks actually giving something observable, and ultimately led into string theory that ALSO has never seen an experimental prediction
So he's a fart-sniffing theoretical physicist.

>other books include ecology obsession, to the point of directly writing about the fucking Green parties' rise.
More moonbating...

>book you're trying to rub in is in significant part claiming Leonardo was totally setting the foundations for his "science", which he insists on projecting into politics
Fuck him.

People can be very smart and contribute greatly to human knowledge without being "scientists". That you resort to a secondary source's choice of title in the first place is simply more of you revealing malformed midwitery.

>>98866577
>Da Vinci was a hardcode experimentalist. He built the most accurate model of the heart that couldn’t be topped for centuries.
I bet you're the same as >>98866568 and spent several minutes skimming articles for SOMETHING he did that was experimentalism. The incredibly vast majority of his work was not, instead being relatively blunt observations extended by nearly pure reason; this constitutes vastly more of his engagement with anatomy. Proto-scientific, not yet capable of rapidly iterating far from intuition throughout the world.

>>98866586
>Science is the study of phenomena
Inadequate for drawing any boundary condition that describes the paradigm-shift in intellectual effort through the Early Modern Period.

>>98866589
Because that makes "magic" little different from "based" or "cringe", a descriptor of one's opinion of a thing that is consequently completely useless for PLAYING A FUCKING GAME or describing the differing worldviews between periods.

>>98866621
>brought forward by rejecting the sanctity of mystery
Confusing statement. Science in theory loves mystery as it aims to delve into the unknown. There will always be mysteries to look forward to. Mystery is sacred if anything, otherwise there’s nothing left to look forward to.

>>98866622
>The universe is fucking magical anon
is this a magic that you genuinle think will survive the next 30 years

File: IMG_7085.jpg (1.73 MB, 1030x1594)

1.73 MB JPG

>>98866628
>it was SEEN as magic
All magic in fiction is SEEN as magic. To some omniscient, nigh-omnipotent being it’s all just “magic”.
>but you clearly don't seem to think it was.
Pythagoras started numerical cults and Isaac Newton was obsessed with sacred geometry.

>>98866633
The stars will outlive us. Yes. We’re only alive because of the light of our mother star.

>>98866629
The point was that Leonardo is commonly called a scientist.

>>98866638
>>but you clearly don't seem to think it was.
>Pythagoras started numerical cults and Isaac Newton was obsessed with sacred geometry.
but here is the main thing , you think they are wrong they have to be wrong.


would you trust your life with someone using numerology to cure your cancer anon.

>>98863341
See Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law
>Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

>>98866630
When I said "sanctity of mystery", I was referring to the idea of leaving mysteries as mysteries.

>>98866589
Shut up, wonderfag

Well if a poinless argument about nothing is going to happen anyway...

Science in any meaningful modern sense is using mathematics to apply empiricism.
>the world is real and i can observe it and understand those observations to extract true predictive knowledge through analysis
THAT, fundamentally speaking, is science. Physics and chemistry are only "sciences" because we believe they exist and behave predictably and choose to study them empirically.
Magic, studied non-empirically, is not a field of science. Alchemy is not science.
Magic that is not causal cannot be studied scientifically. Math and philosophy are not sicences
Magic that cannot be measured empirically cannot be science. Art is not a science.

Magic is only sicence if you write it to behave how science needs it to behave.

>>98866855
To be fair, in the context of tabletop games, magic tends to function more like a superpower than anything resembling a science anyways, so it can be as scientific or as unscientific as the fluff asks. Maybe there’s a perfectly sound explanation why that magically produced fire causes people to experience deep chills instead of feeling hot when exposed to it. Maybe there isn’t. Either way, it’s a fantasy world and a game, so we can temporarily suspend certain aspects of our skepticism and accept premises we may or may not believe in for the purposes of fulfilling our fantasies, like “magic is proven to be real, we just don’t know every aspect of it.”

>>98864740
Not all of us can be born into a client caste and coast gently upwards on a cushion of diversity mandates.

>>98863341
Magic? Yes. Wizards? No.
You can absolutely have magic that is not rooted in any kind of science, simply by making the magic patron-based (summoning and making deals with demons or other powerful entities) or just straight up being religious in nature (divine magic, etc). Externalize your magic to sources with a will of their own that can choose whether or not to grant you the power you are asking for and you break the deterministic nature of scientific experimentation.
But wizards are scholars. They might not be scientists per say, but their entire aesthetic and toolset is very explicitly based on hermetic alchemists, which is the tradition that science evolved from so its always going to be waiting in the wings, whispering in the ears of your archmage "You should submit the Dick Vaporization spell you invented for peer review." and then boom you're a science now. If it walks like a science and quacks like a science, people are always going to call it a science. So if you don't want people to treat wizards like magical scientists, you have to take away every aspect of their aesthetic and identity that was copied from real world scholarly pursuits, because those led us to science.

>>98866638
>All magic in fiction is SEEN as magic.
Thats objectively not true. I can think of multiple stories that had clear magic in them that the people of that setting that practiced it would argue is not magic because they consider it not special.

>>98863341
Yes, easily. If you can't then it's a skill issue.

>is it possible to separate cause and effect from cause and effect
>is it possible to separate existence from existence, reality from reality
No

>>98867775
>I can think of multiple stories that had clear magic in them that the people of that setting that practiced it would argue is not magic because they consider it not special.
You’re just proving his point. Magic to one is not magic to another. The elemental bending in Avatar isn’t magic to the people in that world. The elves in Lord of the Rings aren’t magical to themselves.

Magic is about perception. About seeing a thing as magic. If it’s too familiar, then it’s not really magic; not unless you continue to see the wonder in it, or you continue to appreciate it, in such a way.

The point is that magic has a bar. Elves and wizards have higher bars for magic than the mundane folk not used to seeing or experiencing such things.

The capital-w wizard won’t necessarily see himself as a capital-w wizard. They might be too humble and all too aware of things for that.

>>98863361
Shocked nobody posted it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZIjbX1gj88

>>98868013
You’ve basically argued a moot point by pointing out that it all depends on the story/setting, right? Like nothing disqualifies a magic wielder from calling themselves a Wizard in Warhammer Fantasy just as nothing compels a psionic from denying they’re a wizard in Shadowrun, at least beyond the rules stating that Psionics are considered the same as mages for the sake of balance, yeah?

>>98868013
No! It must ALWAYS be called magic! If anything else is also called magic, then it is WRONG, okay?? A wizard is under full obligation to ALWAYS call himself a wizard. Always. Elves are always going to see themselves as magical. Always.

>>98868033
>You’ve basically argued a moot point by pointing out that it all depends on the story/setting
Anon. “It depends on the author” is just a variant of “it depends on the perception”. Fiction is fiction and magic systems are magic systems precisely because they’re of differing takes. Different perceptions. This is why magic and religion are seen as synonymous and interchangeable, as they are essentially just cultural franchises. Competing ways to look at and understand the world. “Your god ain’t my god; in fact it’s probably just a gay ass demon!”.

Magic is like fiction. Fiction is like magic.

>>98868044
No, I said “it depends on the setting”. Cause for one, writers can have separate incompatible visions of the world aka different canons. And two, this is /tg/. It ultimately matters more what the table agrees to aka the rules than solely what someone else says. Some twerp on 4chan argue that clerics and mages and wizards are the same till he’s blue in the face, but nobody will care as long as he continues to be a no-games.

>>98868033
>Like nothing disqualifies a magic wielder from calling themselves a Wizard in Warhammer Fantasy
Nothing disqualifies a fifth dimensional alien looking at Warhammer, including the Warp, and going “oh it’s just X and Y…”, and applying scientific labels to Slaanesh and Khorne, etc, and maybe even making a few edits to Chaos.

Magic and science and psionics are all the same shit in Warhammer btw.

>>98868061
>writers can have separate incompatible visions of the world aka different canons
Yes. Just like religion. Just like all the varying takes on nature for thousands of years. Fiction is no different from religion.

Authors having differing takes from reality is fiction.

>>98868062
Correct.

But unless he’s the GM, his opinion don’t mean a damn.

>>98868068
Are you trying to argue reality is fiction?

>>98868069
>But unless he’s the GM, his opinion don’t mean a damn.
Logic supersedes and transcends authors and GMs. A writer cannot remove math or causality from his narratives no matter how hard he tries. His imagination depends on logic to begin with.

>>98868073
Hi wonderfag

>>98868072
Religion is a fiction on reality, anon. Our ability to understand nature (science) is a narrative of a sort, although non-fictional. Causality can be compared to a story. The Big Bang is a cosmic legend.

File: IMG_7091.jpg (187 KB, 572x489)

187 KB JPG

>>98868077
Hai

>>98868078
Ah, so we’re not actually talking about ttrpgs anymore. Got it. Thanks for the heads up.

>>98868087
You don’t roleplay? You can’t into realism?

>>98868091
No, I prefer to know whether we’re talking specifically in the realm of tabletop rpgs or in some other aspect, since there isn’t a way to declare definitively which religions are or aren’t false in real life while in a ttrpg it’d as simple as a god getting a stat line, for instance. I’m less interested in arguing with autistic pedants.

>>98866496
> Enrico Fermi reportedly told Slotin and others they would be "dead within a year" if they continued performing the test in that manner.[11] Scientists referred to this flirtation with a nuclear chain reaction as "tickling the dragon's tail", based on a remark by physicist Richard Feynman.
Even with the safety standards of the day, a lot of screwdriver guy's fellow scientists knew full well that what he was doing was incredibly reckless.

>>98863341
yes, if you define it that way in the setting you've bilt then that's how it's defined, and nothing else is necessary

you can even go farther than that and show why your magic doesn't interact with empiricism in a predictable way if you like (inb4 randomness, it doesn't need to be random, only look random)

It’s actually really funny how people don’t understand just how SIMPLE of a thing science is

>>98866516
Now it makes sense why it doesn't look like any nuclear reactor.

>>98868918
is a contradiction though , if science is so simple then science doesn't really matter as a label anon.

if someone sees a wizard and says he has to be a scientist is he not just saying science as is understood isn't real?
when someone likes sciences they are talking about a specific noun not a verb.

no one currently consider someone flexing his mussles over and over again to make a house a scientist , until he gets results? , then he was intelectually the same as most university graduates?

for all the people who say magic is a science.

for example , even something as simple as star wars , what would that actually mean if the force was a science , would that change anything or are you playing definition games?

people could also define all sciences as a part of magic , but I don't think you guys would be OK with defining a story like bladerunner as being a magical text.

>>98869917
I don't get the sense that you understand the conversation, anon. What do you think you are saying? Do you understand WHY people say that magic is a science, or are these just meaningless words to you?

>>98866855
>Science in any meaningful modern sense is using mathematics to apply empiricism.
Anon, that is not the definition of science there multiple scientific fields that definition CAN'T apply to because math in not meaningfully involved.

>>98869917
It basically is just a matter of semantics, yes.

>>98869910
You sound so coped out right now kek
>>98869917
You sound so doped put right now kek

>>98869953
that their philosophy of what things are at a fundamental level (science) is so correct that not even fiction can scape it.

>>98870166
Whether or not something is a science has nothing to do with "what things are", its about how you learn about those things. Science is a METHOD of understanding, which mostly comes down to trying something, recording your results, doing it a bunch more times, seeing if your results are consistent, and then other people doing the same thing and seeing if they get same results you did.

The moment that your wizard reads a book about a spell some other wizard did, copies it down into their spellbook, and then casts that spell by following the instructions they were given? Its science, or at the very least approaching it and the only thing preventing it being science yet is formality. It doesn't matter if what they are doing is channeling aetheric resonances from the astral plane, the method they have employed to learn and share this information is fundamentally compatible with the scientific method.

>>98869953
>Do you understand WHY people say that magic is a science
Yeah, it's autism. Same reason you're going to spend the rest of the thread arguing about it like you always do.

>>98863341
The problem with these meme pictures is that they rely on a superficial idea of magic, the aesthetic trappings but not the actual magic as it would be in a world where it actually functioned. And far too many people here are fine with the superficial trappings and not the actual heart of it.

The runes, for example, are meant to evoke a sigil, a magical symbol or collection of symbols which by themselves create an effect not tied to "normal" physics. However, these diode diagrams are inert maps of how they function. The other is just a bunch of high level math, also inert and does nothing by itself. It is also a map of reality. For it to be proper magical runes, these things must do more than simply lay there inert when drawn.

The same is true of the rest of the image. Uranium is a glowing death aura rock, but beyond that its mostly just a rock. It has some interesting and fun properties as a rock but doesnt due much more beyond that without material physical processes. It does not react to emotion, it does not react to language; it does not react to intentions or anything of the psyche, the spirit, or any process tied to the mind.

And there is the crux, magic as most people conceive of it (and as it is referenced in dictionaries and such) is a process of the mind and language leveraging power over reality without material processes. It allows you to alter reality without needing to physically alter it.

There is also the matter that most magical worlds function off a wholly different set of physics than ours, even if on the surface it is familiar. Strange energies from beyond the universe, fundamentally different "atomic" particles ala elemental energies, and many other things.

Threads like these just reveal people are idiots and morons who see only the surface parts of magical practices, folklore, and myth.

Id like the many retards, including wonderfag, to please tell me why the definition of magic doesn't include mystery or wonder.
Here it is in case none of you actually know it and are going off idiosyncratic vibes and bullshit.
>1a: the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces
>b: magic rites or incantations

It seems to me that all this arguing over magic as science or science as magic is just retarded sophistry done by particular deeply autistic /x/ rejects as an exercise in imposing their shitty viewpoints on ttrpgs without being able to actually talk about ttrpgs. In none of these threads will wonderfag and his /x/ reject cohorts actually talk about how these things would work in games like D&D or other high fantasy works involving magica and spells and other mre fantastical things, the rules and game mechanics and lore that would stem from their particular retarded viewpoint.

Instead its constant sophistry and word games around wonder, mystery, and "magic".

>>98870451
You could also just say that wonderfag and his ilk are nogames, anon

>>98870283
>magic as most people conceive of it (and as it is referenced in dictionaries and such) is a process of the mind and language leveraging power over reality without material processes. It allows you to alter reality without needing to physically alter it.
Nope. Plenty of magic made use of many corresponding sympathetic/material components. As above, so below. The alignment of Mars just happened to correspond with certain materials and alchemical functions. A person’s keepsake (or just their fingernail) was seen to correspond and connect and grant access to the person who owns or owned it. Or so it was believed. This is seen in plenty of cultures. They didn’t believe shit just happened. They absolutely had an explanation for it.

The idea that magic is just some ability or superpower to bend reality is rather naive and childish. It had a lot more to do with ritual and artifice than people realize.

>>98870283
>The problem with these meme pictures is that they rely on a superficial idea of magic, the aesthetic trappings but not the actual magic as it would be in a world where it actually functioned.
The actual, true essence of magic is just awe and wonder and mystery and horror and enchantment and such. The coating or wrapping doesn’t matter. An alien sage or some mad scientist evokes the same essence as the wizard. Different words and terminologies are used, but it’s all still the same in the end.

>It does not react to emotion, it does not react to language; it does not react to intentions or anything of the psyche, the spirit, or any process tied to the mind.
Sounds like you want magic to be alive or response. Intelligent. I like that. Spells are always behaving like programs in so many fantasy fictions…

When artificial intelligence becomes so advanced or is totally alien (not human in origin) to the point of becoming one with / indistinguishable from nature, responding to things you’d never expect nature to respond to, such as runes, mathematics, astrology, sacred geometry, language, or worse things like blood sacrifice.

I always thought the movie Annihilation was a good example of when people confront something indistinguishable from magic. Beautiful, but utterly alien, and it will consume you.

>>98870734
alive or responsive*

>>98870693
>>98870734
And how has this played into the latest tabletop game you played recently? Give specific detailed examples, please.

>>98870693
>Plenty of magic made use of many corresponding sympathetic/material components
Yes, but the main and most important aspect of altering the world was by language. Even the dictionary definition of magic literally says magical incantations when refering to magic. Repeating and/or specific phrases made of specific language to create a specific effect. Yes, magic has had extra bits and bobs needed for specific things, but the central driving aspect has always been language directly altering reality.

Also, yes, I know how real life magic was supposed to work.

>>98870734
>true essence of magic is just awe and wonder and mystery
Thats not the essence of magic and you know this. Thats the feelings you want when thinking about or interacting with "magical" things. Please refer to >>98870451 and explain why the dictionary is wrong and you, an autistic /x/ reject, are right.

>Sounds like you want magic to be alive or response.
No. Just because it responds to the mind or psyche or whatever does not necessairly imply that it is alive or intelligent. The computer you use is not alive because it responds to voice activation and neither would the magic.

Also, lol at AI ever becoming one with nature. There are physical limitations that prevent such from occurring, and its fantastical magical thinking that such a thing could ever occur. Quite simply, you do not understand enough about physics or AI to properly assess that claim. It will not be some digital god.

Also, lol at thinking Annihilation's weird shit isnt just magic dressed up as "weird" science. Nothing in that movie once they cross the boundary counts as science or physics. Its a fairytale story dressed up in modern clothing and an ultra thin veneer of science, with modern commentary on the nature of change and trauma.

>>98870826
It hasn't because they dont play games and are here to argue about semantics and sophistry.

>>98868000
Reducing "magic" and "science" to terms like these renders both useless for any meaningful discourse.

>>98868013
>You’re just proving his point.
Incorrect, because "his" point is dependent upon subjectivity being true in ALL cases. Inside of Avatar, the reason bending is not "magic" is because there is in fact a separate class of things (probably to do with Spirits, who's distinctly-separated world bending DOESN'T WORK IN bricking the underlying monist conception) that they conceive of as "magic".

>>98868036
Disproving wonderfaggotry only requires one scenario where self-identification is objectively true. Retreating to the opposite totality is a non-sequitur, because you're the only one arguing a singular definition to apply to all cases. Which doesn't fucking work for any use but your own solipsistic fart-sniffing that insists on reducing away any barrier that could possibly falsify your position.

>>98868044
>Anon. “It depends on the author” is just a variant of “it depends on the perception”.
No it does not, because there are boundaries between different authors' works. They are not inter-related in any logically valid way, because no few authors make explicit points of contradicting others.

>>98868073
>Logic supersedes and transcends authors and GMs.
The common base layer is far sparser than your projection of a malformed materialist monism, and even this is enough to contradict you with uncertainties.

>A writer cannot remove math or causality from his narratives no matter how hard he tries.
Contradictory yet extremely useful axioms appear in different fields of mathematics quite routinely, and counterfactual causal mechanisms are not especially difficult to engage with in the loose terms of narrative.
>>98868091
What if I want literally anything outside your "realism" in my elfgame?

>>98868918
It is very simple to describe, but empiricism is not fully intuitive while following experimentalism gets more than a bit thorny once counter-intuitive discoveries arrive.

>>98870166
Incorrect. It is not all that difficult to describe a counterfactual where any extant actor's attempts at empiricism is inadequate to discover the processes driving events, because it relies INTENSELY on invariance of said processes and straightforward observability of them.

>>98870734
>The actual, true essence of magic is just awe and wonder and mystery and horror and enchantment and such.
By your malformed reductionism of millennia of linguistic drift finding nothing else, because you refuse to accept category-boundaries in general.

>>98870841
>Yes, but the main and most important aspect of altering the world was by language
Math is a language. So too could science be considered a language. We know what it responds to, it’s just not our vocal chords.

>>98870841
>Thats not the essence of magic and you know this. Thats the feelings you want when thinking about or interacting with "magical" things.
Kind of difficult to argue otherwise, since otherwise it’s just superficiality. You want magic to look and act and respond a specific way, and anything else “isn’t magic”.

>>98863341
Yes. By definition Magic ignores Physics. Next question?

>>98870841
>Just because it responds to the mind or psyche or whatever does not necessairly imply that it is alive or intelligent
Of course it does lol. The parameters and trajectories and variables and concepts are all far too sophisticated and demanding to be anything but the grand design of some intelligence. It’s a fair consideration given that animism is one of our oldest belief systems out there; that even the stones and streams and fires are living things.

>>98870841
>Also, lol at thinking Annihilation's weird shit isnt just magic dressed up as "weird" science. Nothing in that movie once they cross the boundary counts as science or physics. It’s a fairytale story dressed up in modern clothing and an ultra thin veneer of science, with modern commentary on the nature of change and trauma.
Magic is just weird physics and vice versa. Weird is also relative.

>>98870887
>No it does not, because there are boundaries between different authors' works
Yes. Different perceptions. One world’s dragons aren’t another world’s dragons. One world’s magic isn’t another world’s magic.

Hate wonder and mystery all you want, but ignorance has been the driving factor behind religion and magic since forever.

File: 1639716378161.png (191 KB, 414x319)

191 KB PNG

>>98863341

>>98871061
Shut up, nogames

>>98870997
>Math is a language.
Yes. And its a map of reality but not reality itself.
>So too could science be considered a language.
Oh, you were doing so well, but no. Its a process of acquiring knowledge and little more than that.
>We know what it responds to,
Nothing. It doesnt respond and any hint of thinking such belies a mind lost to delusions and unreality.

>>98871003
>Kind of difficult to argue otherwise
It is remarkably easy when you dont confuse what it is with the feelings you want from it. As you have repeatedly done. An Idea: try thinking about what magic is without reference to the feelings you want from it. After much long thought, maybe youll discover something about it without reference to your own perceptions.

>>98871038
This is just stale religious apologetics fished out of the trash and dressed up to argue for a grand mind behind magic. Throw that thing away, wash your hands, and then get a better argument.

>>98871042
The big takeaway is that Annihilation shares more with old fairy tales than any sense of science.

>>98871061
Nobody here hates wonder and mystery. We just think there is a time and place for it, not everywhere, all the time. Please explain how your desperate desire for mystery and wonder in all things would help in the creation and rules function of a high fantasy game with actual spellcasters and common magic.

>>98871003
>You want magic to look and act and respond a specific way
No, we want to allow authors to declare such so that "magic" is a coherent enough descriptor to write rules for to PLAY A FUCKING GAME.

>>98871048
>Yes. Different perceptions.
No, "magic" genuinely means different things in different settings because their internal logics are disconnected. Again, there is a shared base layer, but this is a very shallow thing limited to avoidance of contradictions rather than at all assuring your monist baggage.

>>98871061
In IRL mysticism that doesn't fucking work. Elfgames typically have assumptions about mysticism that DOES work informing very basic constraints of play.

>>98863341
Yeah. Science is what is possible within the laws of physics (even the unknown ones). Magic is what isn't possible within those same laws, yet stil happen.

>>98863384
Opposite actually. He closed the ball and that's what killed everyone.

>>98863341
No.

>>98871815
>Magic is what isn't possible within those same laws, yet stil happen.
Then those laws were wrong.

>>98871474
>In IRL mysticism that doesn't fucking work
Mysticism is literally just deepest intuition (but irl mystics fucking hate when you go and word it this way) and people like Isaac Newton and numerous ancient Greeks came to profoundly accurate conclusions about reality without actually having hard empirical evidence for it.

WIZARDS INVENTED SCIENCE SHUT THE FUCK UP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_VBgQwUNxk

>>98876920
>Mysticism is literally just deepest intuition
No, it is assumptions built up from such with terribly inadequate concern for results.

>>98871061
Trvke

>>98871474
>No, "magic" genuinely means different things in different settings because their internal logics are disconnected.
>”magic”
You just ate your own argument
Magic IS perception if it’s seen as not magic by some

>>98863381
>To the sufficiently educated physicist, Star Trek is straight up fantasy
This is why no one likes you.

>>98879446
Is he wrong?

File: 1295829890024.jpg (15 KB, 367x388)

15 KB JPG

>>98876914
>then those laws were wrong
It's lucky we had this autist who can't fathom what magic is to tell us that reality itself is wrong.

File: E11pICxUcAgrTBa.jpg (148 KB, 638x800)

148 KB JPG

Does your "magic"
>behave consistently
>have explanatory models
>have parameters
>have hypotheses that can be proven wrong
, then it's not magic.

It's easy bros, every time you cast a spell just roll on a table with different alterations, choose the dice randomly every time... Now it cannot be a science


Pic related is a science

>>98879601
Yes, because the "sufficiently educated" can suspend disbelief

>>98863361
Demon core.
USA had actually third nuke prepared to drop on Japan but nips happily capitulated. For years burgers had no idea what to do it and there were few absolute retards that were like "what if we open it?" that ended as you can imagine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core

>>98863361
Demon core, if you put it together it goes critical and unleashes fatal amounts of radiation.

>>98879385
Does a bullet just stop being a bullet because you can't perceive it being fired at you and penetrating your considerable belly fat?

>>98880358
That’s called being a bad physicist.

>>98881070
I think the point is that something defined as Magic in a given fiction isn’t immune to being scientifically analyzed by some hypothetically sufficient intelligence to the point where it is seen and called and labelled something else. To argue otherwise is to insist that magic is to remain nebulous and misunderstood, which is to admit that >>98871061 is correct.

>>98880077
No, just our understanding of it. If we understand it, we call it science, if we don't. we call it magic.

>>98881337
I think magic can survive science by becoming a descriptor rather than a definer, yeah. Magic in a lot of science fiction jrpg settings is just a word to describe fucked up sciences, biologies, psionics, etc. It’s like this in 40k too.

>>98881390
There are two sides to wonder - “I wonder…” and “How wonderful!”. Even unveiled mysteries can be appreciated as magic. We’re living in an Atlantean time period, really.

>>98881337
So far it feels more like a way to waste time by nogames wanting to argue with each other over their own headcanons on /tg/ shit as a substitute for actually playing games. Cause there are some games and settings were magic is as much a laborious studied process as any other form of science like say Shadowrun, and there are some where it's the equivalent of a superpower that "just works" without an explicit explanation. It's the same mentality behind Death Battles in that you could probably hyper-obsess over whether Caped Baldy could win in a fight to the death with Goku or would lose, but such an over-analytical autistic approach rather misses the point of even debating it in some kind of nebulous "truth" that only exists in their head. It's getting lost in the forest to argue against the trees themselves about the definition of a "forest".

>>98881431
Shut up, wonderfag

>>98881524
>nogames
Buzzword

>>98881641
It's more succinct than "loser that spends all day on /tg/ talking about offtopic shit that they don't bother even pretending to tie into tabletop games". And I love how that's the only thing you point out since you can't address any of the other points, nogames.

File: Comes with a free magic wand.png (1.54 MB, 1200x923)

1.54 MB PNG

>>98880347
Interestingly, WHA's casting seals are unambiguously a science despite the fact that they apparently conjure energy from nothing AND we have no actual idea *why* they work. Some external force is validating the seals, such that a gylph that is drawn 'cleanly' is stronger and lasts longer than one that is drawn 'poorly', implying that there is some platonic catalog of magic seals somewhere and the closer you adhere to that catalog the better your conductivity (for lack of a better term) is.

But despite the missing knowledge that explains why the magic works, the rules are clearly explained enough that we the reader can not only read most seals and intuit what they do, but we can make our own spells as well with a high degree of confidence in the result. Its actually terrifyingly easy to design such spells, which only reinforces the in-universe dilemma about the dangers of magic being available to the public and what people would do with it if they only knew how.

>>98881670
Also Frieren, HxH, Fullmetal Alchemist, Avatar TLA, Fate's magecraft.

Real magic (completely detached from science), where even a study lasting millennia can only produce libraries of contradictory theories and no understanding, is very difficult to come across. Only Lord of the Rings and Lovecraft comes to mind.

>>98881912
Lord of the rings doesn't actually do that either. LOTR wizards are not scholars, they are innately powerful superbeings that are merely constrained by what they have permission to do while on Middle Earth. Gandalf, Saruman, Sauron, etc are all basically just angels or fallen angels.

And the elves explicitly do not consider what THEY do as magic. The text says this outright: even something like Sting which glows int he presence of Orcs is not considered magic by the elves that made it, its just really, really good blacksmithing.

If you truly think you can TRULY detach magic from science, truly, then you’re just not a very smart guy. Truly.

>>98882461
Self-important assertion without elaboration nor objective proof

>>98863346
Enough about yourself though, redditor.

>>98881337
>To argue otherwise is to insist that magic is to remain nebulous and misunderstood
No, it is to insist on category-boundaries that allow "science" to meaningfully describe the paradigm-shift accelerating human progress to the point of carry capacity outpacing population growth and "magic" to be something coherent enough to WRITE RULES TO PLAY A FUCKING GAME WITH.

>>98881377
Incorrect, there are many poorly-understood things in "science", some things once assured of being well understood by the wisest in the world called "magic" (like its original namesake of Mesopotamian astrologer-priests). And it's not exactly rare to divide the empirically understood between "science" about the back-end theories and "engineering" about the last-leg applications, while what you call "magic" is such a broad tent that the specialized terms in common use under it contradict eachother on basic grammatic and syntactic functions.

>>98881281
Not remotely. Engaging with a separate category by separate standards is how actual logic works quite often, being a major part of why scientists specialize because the particularities are far too diverse for even the vast majority of geniuses to grasp any sizable selection of.

>>98882461
No, if you think it's impossible you're a scientism-fried midwit incapable of speculating about any alternative epistemology. Quite possible for a strictly Rationalist power-system actively engaging with the issues of such as specialization due to truly irreconcilable contradictions between paths of growth, for example.

>>98881934
>LOTR wizards are not scholars
Eh. They’re inherently knowledgeable beings who know how the world works, and are interested in learning things that escape their notice. Gandalf goes out of his way to research things.

>>98882537
I love how your posts always amount to rage posting walls of text while the other anons are perfectly chill and fine

You have issues

>>98882537
>incorrect
There will be science to literally anything and everything if it exists at all. Why are you coping?

if everything has a science , what even is science.

doesn't that make the label meaningless?
me typing this write now has to be a science right?
I am being a scientist RIGHT NOW.

>>98882681
I can’t tell if you’re baiting or just very low in brain volume

>>98882612
>It’s too late anon, I’ve declared you to be the angry strawman chud man and depicted myself as the intelligent and wise sigma make
Lol

>>98882640
Is science the latest buzzword to you now?

>>98882681
>>98882693
This is really embarrassing

>>98882688
>>98882681
both , but anser my question.

>>98882713
Cute how you think samefagging is what i was referring to. No, it’s your inability to understand the bare minimum of nature.

>>98882701
Dodging the question

>>98882681
>if everything is caused/causality, then nothing is(caused)
Derp

>>98882640
>There will be science to literally anything and everything if it exists at all.
Only if you bloat the definition beyond describing the change in intellectual paradigm and completely refuse the millennia of very thorough logic on incompatible epistemological assumptions.

>Why are you coping?
It is not "coping", it is genuine anger at your steadfast refusal to accept any category boundaries as holding any form of validity because you cannot accept the absence of One True Way.

>>98882725
>No, it’s your inability to understand the bare minimum of nature.
Common usage of the "un-" prefix and construction of the terms "Naturalism Bias" and "Natural Law" demands the English word "nature" have an extant outgroup.

>>98882744
"Science" is not synonymous with "causation". Explain your positions using Merriam-Webster's dictionary instead of constantly asserting the same bullshit re-definitions constructed by the same downright insane reductions expecting us to accept you constructing a tautology for your derangements.

>>98882790
Wow. >>98882612 is right and you’re so angry and incapable of not responding to everyone who disagrees with you.

>>98882725
alright but who you are responding too , honestly I just didn't want to sully anons name with my retardation , I am still right though
,-retard anon.

>>98870874
Important reminder, the real raid posts are the demoralization posts like this one that try to convince you that involved discussion isn't good for the board just because we've had similar discussions in the past.

>>98882790
>"Science" is not synonymous with "causation"
Well anon, the primary goal of science is to understand why and how things, the universe, works. This requires identifying the mechanisms that drive events, and as such, all science is derived from causality. Science can be argued as us taking advantage of causality. To see and poke at causal threads. Even the scientific process is in itself a causal thread or pattern, hence process.

>>98882744
if science just means causastion.
not only should some things not be science , but then science as a label is completly different to what people mean , this post WOULD be science for example.
pseudo science would not be posible in the sense that as long as you are able to make something happen , you are making science.
why do people say the sciences and the arts if science is just cause and effect.
its like saying being a plummer is a different category than existance.

>>98882836
>if everything is math, then nothing is math!
Please don’t tell me you’re actually this low iq

>>98882840
Science just meant any field to knowledge before the scientific revolution happened, lol. It just meant knowledge. Everything is information.

>>98882800
And you seem angry that some autist dares disagree with you on the internet. Need a therapist?

>>98882849
before I make any other reply did you read the definitions in the image or are you responding to there being a new post

>>98882808
This isn’t a discussion, it’s just the same pseudoscience losers circlejerking one another until someone calls them nogames, at which point they turn into screeching howler monkeys about atheism and being anti science and they continue to be nogames.

>>98882846
what does it mean for something to be science anon.
my issue is more so that magic being a science in this context doesn't descrive anything and it doesn't force anything to magic , the correct responce to how you see the world is to ignore you , since it doesn't change anything.


anything being math would have actual implications , since math is an actual thing , I can think about , meditate and observe , I can make conclutions on completly universal limitations using that claim.

but your definition of science means that someone praying the cancer away in the middle ages , is just as scientific as someone during chemo.
at least theorically.

why should I care if you label something a science , it doesn't have any autority as a claim.

>>98882868
just an example , you are talking about with someone about the idea of sincronisity and this person will bet the life savings of your entire country based on this idea.


what do you tell them anon.

because that choice is perfectly scientific

>>98882858
I’m a casual onlooker. I’m agreeing with the assertion that science and knowledge are one and the same. Science as a word came from knowledge.

>>98882868
>what does it mean for something to be science anon
“Remember kids, the only real difference between fucking around and proper science is writing it down”.

Modern science is just the acknowledgment of what science is. It’s formalized. Throwing random shit at a wall and seeing what sticks, is science. You can do great science in isolation. Like Leonardo Da Vinci did.

But then you have the people who argue you’re not a real scientist if you don’t share your work with the consensus. This comes across as butthurt. You’d have to be a totally ass hurt individual to ever call Da Vinci a non-scientist.

>>98882966
>Modern science is just the acknowledgment of what science is
acknowlegenment of what anon.

>Throwing random shit at a wall and seeing what sticks, is science
but by this science is just a specific activity or ritual , their can be stuff that exists that doesn't pair well with the scientific method.
in the same way you can try to understand everything by just looking at it , but that can be flawed , not a core part of reality fundamentally.

>>98882982
>acknowlegenment of what anon.
Cause-and-effect. Observation-theory. Shit-happens.

>>98882982
>but by this science is just a specific activity or ritual , their can be stuff that exists that doesn't pair well with the scientific method
Nope. It’s literally just repeatability, reproducibility, and the replication crisis (good luck recreating the big bang, or the exact same stroke of a paint brush, etc).

There is no simpler method than Doing. If we can’t analyze or assess something, that’s just a consequence of there being eternal blind spots.

>>98882982
>in the same way you can try to understand everything by just looking at it , but that can be flawed , not a core part of reality fundamentally.
That’s not really flawed. It’s just the standard. We observe reality and try to understand and record it as best as possible. It’s as basic and as simple as that. That’s also science as it is.

>>98882982
Einstein saw science as a background symphony that plays its cosmic orchestra regardless of our ability or inability to listen in. It will play its eternal tune for all time, with or without us. Physics is reality. If it’s real, then it’s physics, science.

>>98882982
>>98882997
>>98883008
what if someone goes exactly straight agaisnt this logic , or does something completly unrelated to recornising this autority and they still get results.

>>98883027
>>98883018
can't a wizard say the inverse , that evertime we try to understand and interact with the world we are doing mytsism , we are doing magic.

that the symphony of this magical orchesta will play regardless of peoples current opinion on magic , that everything you do is a spell and this is unavoidable?

>>98883062
Mysticism involves mystery. It’s literally in the word. It’s attempting to assess the ineffable. It’s not meant to be empirical. Individuals like Einstein and Isaac Newton and others came to profoundly accurate conclusions and assumptions, absent the empirical evidence, which they had to come up with later.

There was a thread on /sci/ about how most humans are morons who think that science is some complex pretentious thing rather than just fucking around. It can get complicated constructively speaking but at its core it’s just mashing rocks and sticks together to see what happens lol.

>>98883106
>>98883062
my problem anon is that , a lot of magic , supernatural fringe stuff is based around fundamental disagreatments about the philosophy by what things funtions , because science is seen as a specific philosophical stance that for most people has won or will eventually will the race on how things funtion.

while you are descriving science as just the persuit of the race.

on a pure theorical standpoint with what you are telling me , someone wanting to know how to get their book to be more popular could either:
1.-wisper to the ink , bathe yourself in it and imagine birds flying , imagine more and more , imagine the birds so much that it seems like years , centries , trillions of years , eventually once you stop imaging it , you will see one of the ink birds is still their , listen to its wispers.

2-.official profetional market reasearch

under this interpretation are this not two in some sense equally as scientific , theorically speaking.

but thats not how people see the subject matter , thats not how I think you see the subject matter , neither do you.
what does it mean if everything is nature if everything was already nature regardless , even the definitions of nature and supernature , this definitions games just makes it seem like you don't understand the concept of magic , nor the concsept of the supernatural , likewise for science and the natural.

this would be alright if this was your own independent definition of terms , like the guys who think everything is God , thus everything is religios in nature.

but you still imply and use the normal traditional use of science when is aplicable , which makes this whole argument and overall this whole subject matter , inherently a lie.

its implying something that once you get into the nitty gritty of it , was never on the table.


its a paradoxical statement where science is still a philosophical stance on the race on how things works , while also being the race itself.

>>98883185
I think you see magic superficially. Other anons see it in depth.

>>98882822
>Well anon, the primary goal of science is to understand why and how things, the universe, works.
Yes, that is the goal of it. It itself is ONE fairly specific process for doing so, not the understanding thereby (that's distinguished by the -ic suffix) nor the objective truth at the "bottom" if such even exists.

>and as such, all science is derived from causality.
This only renders them related, your farce of an argument relies on reducing them to synonymy.

>>98882846
It's not that we're low IQ, it's that you're a broken midwit who cannot accept not "knowing" something and so you stretch what you think you know to cover all possibilities, even into things that do not exist.

>>98882849
While a correct etymological observation, it is not binding to the present definition. We're writing in English, where "science" is a loan-word for a specific sub-set of "knowledge", no different from us using French loanwords for the meat of an animal. "Chef" and "Chief" are the same word loaned from the same language after some linguistic drift, for a further example of trying to prescribe definitions according to etymology being retarded.

>>98882966
>Modern science is just the acknowledgment of what science is.
I don't care about your assertion that "science" is basal, because I comprehensively reject this re-definition for breaking the intelligibility of the large body of prior works about the epistemological paradigm-shift. Shut up about your tautological anti-jargon and use normal-ass English from Merriam-Webster.

>>98883027
Again, Einstein has zero authority on this subject, the man consistently rejected very basic factors of quantum physics on the insistence that God does not play dice.

>>98883122
"Just fucking around", even merely writing it down, does not get you to space. The core for the directional intergenerational improvement is far beyond your midwit scientism.

>>98883209
>Again, Einstein has zero authority on this subject, the man consistently rejected very basic factors of quantum physics on the insistence that God does not play dice.
LOL you just lost this argument. Bohr lost the debate, you freak. Reality isn’t probabilistic it’s deterministic. Thinking reality is just Lolsorandom is incredibly idiot. Physicists like Sean Carrol and Eric Weinstein are 100% right when they say that Bohr held science back. He did. He thought the found God by assuming there is nothing before randomness. “Dude it all just randomly happens”. No. The way the randomness manifests is already too specific.

>>98883206
>I think you see magic superficially. Other anons see it in depth.
>>98883185
>1.-wisper to the ink , bathe yourself in it and imagine birds flying , imagine more and more , imagine the birds so much that it seems like years , centries , trillions of years , eventually once you stop imaging it , you will see one of the ink birds is still their , listen to its wispers.

2-.official profetional market reasearch

under this interpretation are this not two in some sense equally as scientific , theorically speaking.

if this is how they see science that is fine , the issue I have is that it feels like they are lying about the concepts they are talking about inherently.

because of the implications that still follow traditional understanding of science.

like how all academia could be argued to just be writing skills , even though people refer to those more so as just a thing autors of books and similar texts.

>>98883228
is incredibly idiotic*

Fucking hell. Imagine thinking that the moon vanishes when everyone turns away from it. Imagine seriously thinking that sound waves don’t travel if no one is around to hear it.

Bohr was such a fucking bore.

File: IMG_7191.jpg (641 KB, 1242x883)

641 KB JPG

>>98883230
You want magic to look and function like traditional, classical perceptions of magic, without looking into the senses or why it’s even seen as such. Modern day paraphernalia would look a lot more arcane and occult and hocus pocus than anything a past person could ever come up with, lol.

>>98883228
>>98883232
that really would be magical anon.

>>98883228
He thought he* found God

>>98883243
Lol. “There was nothing before randomness” is another variant of believing that nothing came before God. Bohr thought he found the God Particle in the form of the God Wave Function.

>>98883238
I don't even think my main example is that hocus pocus , it doesn't seem superficial , it looks like a magical way to fix a problem.

is even that to much anon?
then that makes me think that your universalist claims of science are wrong , you should be perfectly fine accepting my accemple as scientific , specifically since we are not talking about exactly right now us making spells ,we are talking about traditional games.


but even in real life , why is that not scientific , why should I be wrong to imagine the birds anon.

>>>/sci/17079831

>>98883258
yea , and if he was correct would that be a scientific truth?

>>98883266
If anything is real/reality, then it’s a scientific truth. How is science not True magic?

>>98883276
even this example
>Bohr found the God Particle in the form of the God Wave Function.
> believing that nothing came before God

>>98883206
Your reductions to conflate things on a pathological insistence on reduction is antithetical to real philosophical depth, because the explicit point of your facile babbling is the removal of details that are what said depth is "about". You may as well just be posting "God Wills It" ad infinitum, because all your talk is just replacing such a one-note conception of "God" with "science".

>>98883228
>LOL you just lost this argument. Bohr lost the debate, you freak.
All the quantum physicists around today actively engaging in it as strictly probabilistic and actually getting results from it strenuously disagree.

>Reality isn’t probabilistic it’s deterministic. Thinking reality is just Lolsorandom is incredibly idiot.
Where's your proof of a deterministic mechanism for any of these incredibly cleanly probabilistic distributions, then? Fuck, we're at the point where "the probabilities are physically real with proportionate contribution to energy content" is the only experimentally-supported explanation for meeting conservation laws in some of the edge-cases like decay products hundreds of times the mass of everything in the interaction they come from.

>>98883232
Ah, the classic "observations mean somebody's looking at it" misunderstanding! It's actually about measurable interactivity. And things merely blur in the absence of such, rather than vanish, with already-stochastic behaviors like transverse waves in a gaseous medium underling "sound" being effectively impossible to tell any difference in.

>>98883238
>You want magic to look and function like traditional, classical perceptions of magic, without looking into the senses or why it’s even seen as such.
Because the former is something that you can actually write rules for, and this is a board for GAMES.

Lol he’s still making walls of text

>>98883287
As Bell has shown us, particles react in defiance of distance, meaning they react faster than light, meaning they defy locality, meaning super-determinism is a thing.

This comes as expected, since any successor theory will tape into spacetime, which should work around the constraints and limits of light speed, ensuring things can move faster than locality.

This is just standard logic. If you can manipulate the container (space) of light, then you can move faster than light. Space expands faster than light lol.

The idea that nothing moves faster than light is just silly. It has always been silly. Einstein was right about determinism, he just didn’t expect it to move faster than he thought.

>my own filosophy it descrives the principle of reality itself , no one can imagine anything different.
>but like free will is stupid , nothing can really be determinisitc , what would that even look like.

I know this are not the same anons , but I found it funny

>>98883324
>As Bell has shown us, particles react in defiance of distance, meaning they react faster than light, meaning they defy locality
Superluminal correlations have so far robustly resisted any attempt at delivering new information beyond light speed.

>meaning super-determinism is a thing.
Why does it MANDATE super-determinism? And can you even imagine an experiment that would demonstrate a prediction that makes, with a coherent failure state demonstrating something else must be the case?

>Space expands faster than light lol.
...To my awareness, this is not the case out to the cosmic microwave background. It's a theoretical eventuality at extremely large scales of time and space regarding only the relative distance between points, not something with any local relevance.

>>98881377
See
>>98871815
>Science is what is possible within the laws of physics (even the unknown ones).
>(even the unknown ones).
>(even the unknown ones).
>(even the unknown ones).
Rules out bullshit autism like "our understanding of it".

>>98863341
Don't forget crude oil being the ichor of sin that corrupts and mutates you when you touch it.

The only difference between the real world and fiction is that fiction looks cool while the real world is bland and mundane.

>>98884688
You’re so fucking stupid lol

>>98885008
Thanks for conceding.

>>98884688
>>98885008
>>98885021

The problem with this argument is that it only works from an outsider's perspective of a fictional setting, us imposing OUR laws on THEIR world and saying that anything that works for them that wouldn't work for us is 'magic'.

But from the perspective of someone who lives in a world where literally every person alive can channel Aether as an innate skill, some are just better at it than others, Aether isn't magical to them. Powerful, impressive, very cool, but not in any way some violation of the 'physical laws of their world'. The physical laws of their world just include Aether as a fundamental force, and it would be insane to suggest otherwise. Same way that we don't really understand gravity but its always there, we accept it, and we don't shit our pants about it and call it magic.
Dragons are flying wizards that breath fire, but if you tried to explain to someone that lives in a world where dragons exist as natural creatures that dragons 'violate the laws of physics' they would look at you like you grew a second head. All you are saying is effectively "Well, in MY opinion they can't do that."

>>98884688
See
>>98880347

>>98885447
>The physical laws of their world just include Aether as a fundamental force, and it would be insane to suggest otherwise.
Only if you define "physical" in such a away that the rather extensive arguments about cosmology and metaphysics become utterly incomprehensible. On the other hand, if you don't allow the scope-creep of "physics" to march along uncontested into fantasy settings overtly based on the things it was argued in opposition to, then "Aether" can be a real-to-them yet non-physical phenomenon, its governing laws even less reconcilable than gravity has so far proven with quantum physics.

Fuck's sake, science isn't materialist anymore. That "proper" cosmological assumption got thoroughly disproven by the continued pileup of massless energy-fields and scientists just shrugged and moved on with their work, while some philosophers tweaked the back-end a bit to include energy and spacetime wonkiness as their own "still physical" things.

>>98885447
That is also subject to the dreaded "depends on the setting", sadly. Sokka in Avatar the Last Air Bender tends to call the bending "magic" in a way to emphasize how strange and unnatural seeing bending is to a normie like him, especially since it's a normal function to a bender like "breathing" yet still somehow completely unteachable or unexplainable to a non-bender beyond "I can feel it". Discworld has both magic AND people using wishful thinking and the preconceptions of magic against the normals, with both being labeled as very different things. And there's plenty of settings where magicians are commonplace but still call what they do "magic" because they're attribute their capacity to do so as bestowed upon them by a higher power for example.

>>98885480
Not even relevant.

>>98885447
>The problem with this argument is that it only works from an outsider's perspective of a fictional setting
Definitely not. The whole point of the argument is to remove perspective entirely.

>>98885566
I’ve had professors who have pointed out that the word “matter” is now a semantic front. We have examples of massless particles, and to some physicists, something being real/there makes it “matter” (“space matters; it’s a real fabric that expands”) and it has nothing to do with mass.

Scientists can’t even agree over what a woman is, or what science even means.

File: IMG_7204.jpg (43 KB, 495x619)

43 KB JPG

>>98885879
Scientists thought a slice of chorizo was a legit star LOL

>I think the point is that something defined as Magic in a given fiction isn’t immune to being scientifically analyzed by some hypothetically sufficient intelligence to the point where it is seen and called and labelled something else. To argue otherwise is to insist that magic is to remain nebulous and misunderstood
/thread

“Magic” has always been more magical than Magic™. There will always be things at the edges to gawk at.

The capital-w wizard’s bar for magic is a lot higher than the normies. They may not even call or see themselves as wizards.

What normies consider magic, the wizard does not consider magic. What a wizard considers magic, is really damn magical.

>>98885888
They - the scientific community - can’t take a joke

File: Screenshot 2026-10-27 120452.png (79 KB, 809x485)

79 KB PNG

>>98885914
It's fascinating how these threads utterly refuse to engage with definitions, with the actual words as they are actually used, and instead sit in the idiosyncratic and personal ideas of midwits, halfwits, and lackwits. Youve bastardized the idea of magic into this nebulous and vague thing that allows you to say whatever you want about it.

Magic would remain magic simply because its about things outside (super) of the universe (nature and the natural) altering the universe via the power of language (magic spells and incantations). See definition 1a & b in pic. It has always been this simple and understandable. And yes, you can do science to spellcraft and magical incantations and theyll still be magic. Instead, all the weird little fuckwits arguing for mystery and wonder, arguing for strange, tautological, and even contradictory definitions of science, keep posting their retarded thoughts.

The closest we get to actual definitions is sophistry about the etymology, the history of the word they bastardize to help their own retarded arguments. They never engage with its modern use because to do so would harm their silly bullshit. All of this is debatebro idiocy done by what I suspect are non-American autists with a rather poor understanding of English at best, or at worst literal retards who desperately need to go back to grade school.

Additionally, none of the fuckwits arguing this nonsense will ever go anywhere near trying to reconcile all of this bullshit for a ttrp and its rules. You and the rest of the /x/ and likely /sci/ rejects here to argue about magic and science and your pet retarded theories for both are nogames morons. Start tying this into ttrpgs or shut the fuck up.

The only person in this thread, besides me, who actually tries to steer this discussion in any way towards being on topic for the board is >>98883287. Who also incidentally is the only one who seems to actually have some understanding of science or scientific knowledge.

>>98887075
A ritual? Comes from a word meaning proper working. Building a computer is a ritual. Coding is a ritual. Cooking is a ritual. An incantation? We can construct technology to response to verbal queues.
We speak to AI like a shaman speaks to the spirits.

>>98887195
Way to emphasize his point, dipshit.

You want a mysterious magical system?
Fine.
Grab a list of like, one million different things, from items to actions to environmental factors
Then pick like a thousand at random and give them a random number from minus whatever to plus whatever

Whenever you roll you add up everything that applies and maybe roll some dice for good measure
The closer you get to 0 the more on point the spell is, the further you get from 0 the more the spell misbehaves.

Change the list and number every week or make it anew for each spell

Tada now magic is unknowable except for the GM since is the only one that can know whatever hidden variables affect the spell

File: CiQjlH0UoAAc-NU.jpg (38 KB, 600x450)

38 KB JPG

>>98863341
No. Because it is a new, fundamental aspect of nature that can't be separated and only by sheer circumstance were Humans uniquely positioned to not experience it normally until it was forced upon them.

Now it serves as the basisi for numerous technologies and the threats they allow.

I love these threads
They make me laugh

>>98887075
>Additionally, none of the fuckwits arguing this nonsense will ever go anywhere near trying to reconcile all of this bullshit for a ttrp and its rules. You and the rest of the /x/ and likely /sci/ rejects here to argue about magic and science and your pet retarded theories for both are nogames morons. Start tying this into ttrpgs or shut the fuck up.
You misunderstand why most of us are here. We don't give a fuck about roleplaying or tabletop shit, we're here because it's basically the de facto "fantasy" board, so we discuss related topics, which include magic. I'd hazard a guess that the real hobby a lot of us have in common is worldbuilding, usually privately, for the fun of it, and like reading about other settings and concepts.

The real problem we have is there's a single autist who likes to come here just for arguments, and he's heavily fixated on the idea that magic is just a semantics game, despite REPEATEDLY being shown he's wrong. The rest of us would prefer to just discuss our different definitions and/or divisions of magic and science, but he for some reason insists on it being his way or no way, like he has any control of what we believe.

>>98883228
>Reality isn’t probabilistic it’s deterministic
We still have people who believe this anno domini 2026? Was bell’s theorem that important to you?

>>98890317
>We don't give a fuck about roleplaying or tabletop shit
>I'd hazard a guess that the real hobby a lot of us have in common is worldbuilding
Then post in your containment thread >>98867418

>>98863341
Just because you're scared of things you don't understand doesn't mean the rest of us are, anon.

>>98890340
>dude, lolsorandom
You’re a terrible scientist

>>98890317
>The real problem we have is there's a single autist who likes to come here just for arguments, and he's heavily fixated on the idea that magic is just a semantics game, despite REPEATEDLY being shown he's wrong
>despite REPEATEDLY being shown he's wrong
You’re coping so hard right now lol

>>98890317
>he's heavily fixated on the idea that magic is just a semantics game, despite REPEATEDLY being shown he's wrong
>The rest of us would prefer to just discuss our different definitions and/or divisions of magic and science
You just ate your own argument alive btw

>>98890404
You’re talking to someone who isn’t even self aware of themselves. Of course they can’t identify what they’re even doing. They ain’t eating broccoli, they say, as they’re eating broccoli.

These threads are funny as fuck.

>>98890345
Get fucked, nobody sane uses generals.

>>98890398
>>98890404
>>98890438
No, you samefagging autist, there's a difference between us saying "these are all the ways magic can be labelled", and you going "NO THERE IS ONLY THIS, I'M GOING TO ARGUE WITH EVERYONE ELSE AND WASTE ALL OF OUR TIME OVER IT". Just wind your neck in, you dense fuck, and enjoy that other people have other definitions that aren't so totalitarian like your SUBJECTIVE opinion.

>>98889279
Me too. I've started assisting whoever posts the best images. Keeps it entertaining. But it has been a bit sad to see the refresh attempts with a similar question start happening in the 200 post range.

>>98890923
>wehhhh wehhhh I need a space for my autistic shitty worldbuilding!
>There's one righ there
>I don't want it!
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't keep it from dying of thirst

>>98891163
Alternatively, you (the minority) can go and do... whatever it is you pretend you do in your own singular general, and leave the rest of us to it with our own threads. Or die of thirst, I don't really care.

>>98863341
Played a game where my character made runes and pretty advanced metallurgy (Carburizing his blades). He thought his runes were less magical and complex than steel itself.

They were perfectly separate concepts. Don't know why that matters.