That's just wrong. Even just staying within the original post 'Anything that goes along with Causality is science'
So just make Magic non causal. We generally don't do that because frankly its frustrating for the player, but someone trying to engineer or science magic is frustrating for me so if they do that, suddenly their 'mage' develops a 'Daemon Loci' as their magic develops sentenience. It's still their magic, it often does what they want, but all the rules for magic are 'Roleplay b***h' and its entirely appropriate for the gm to say ''CAUSE ITS MAGIC b***h' when the player complains.
Let me spell it out for you >Causality
See we make magic per the rules very causal so low iq homosexuals like you can follow along. All we have to do to return magic from 'casual' to 'acausal'.
But you may say, you can't do that. >But you can
It's already a universe with miracles. Having Acausal miracles ain't no thing because frankly the causal miracles (that are rather expressly just there so drooling low IQ morons like you can play) are already the exception. Miracles by definition are acausal, they can't be casual because like you said they wouldn't be miracles but a feature of causal reality.
Okay, but what lead up to magic becoming a semi-sapient, practically-living thing? Everything starts from something, somewhere. Life on this planet didn’t just appear out of nowhere.
>what leads up to it
Look more Low IQ Causal thinking. If Miracles are miraculous, Magic having sapience is no stranger then Gods existing (which I guess you could argue as aspects, domains or rules of nature having sapience). By definition of the Materialists, life had to start up out of no where in a purely innorganic universe. Magic did that and probably did Sapiernce as a lay up hey babe, hand on the locker kind of thing.
You can think of the game rules as 'Man magic' because its made for autist men. It works good at that but it's not the only magic, there is also woman magic where magic is a woman you have to please. And just like in real life you don't understand that.
Let me ask you this, dipshit. Does God view His miracles as miraculous? Does God view Himself as a God? Does the human consider themselves a god to an ant? Is dropping a single jellybean on an anthill a miracle?
Magic and miracles are entirely relative, and it’s the same with the gods. “That’s not a god, THIS is a God!” “Your god is a demon, mine is a true God!” Etc.
>Even this can still be scientific if it's still demonstrably repeatable
Then make it non-repeatable and unreliable. >"but that still would mean that we just haven't studied it hard enough!"
Outer Black evils don't care about your pathetic truth-seeking attempts at being a gnostic know-it-all. Trve magic is an endeavor of fools and madmen who toil surreptitiously in rituals to beckon the Moon. End of story!
On a more serious note, yes, it's entirely possible to make magic work like that in your setting. OP threadshot talks about defying nature, but it also can very well defy cognition/gnosis the same way you gotta breathe manually once you have taken notion of it.
Even a magic system that works off subconsciousness/Id would come pretty close to not being science-crunchable IMO.
Read the rest of my post, friend!
You can have magic warp and bend and lense around attempts to study it consciously and studying something sub-consciously is, well, hardly studying is it?
> Then make it non-repeatable and unreliable.
Then how do people learn it and why do people rely on it?
>Then how do people learn it
You're making an assumption that magic is academically learn, which might not be the case.
It is common for magic to be an inherent gift or something that's bestowed from above. >and why do people rely on it?
You're making an assumption that people would rely on it as a part of some sort of high-fantasy setting where magic is incorporated into the logistics and infrastructure and whatnot, or otherwise commodified.
Do people rely on capoeira or knowledge of cantonese? It can be a hobby for the weird and the degenerate and the odd. It could be a dangerous and unreliable tool for the desperate.
>Even this can still be scientific if it's still demonstrably repeatable
Then make it non-repeatable and unreliable. >"but that still would mean that we just haven't studied it hard enough!"
Outer Black evils don't care about your pathetic truth-seeking attempts at being a gnostic know-it-all. Trve magic is an endeavor of fools and madmen who toil surreptitiously in rituals to beckon the Moon. End of story!
On a more serious note, yes, it's entirely possible to make magic work like that in your setting. OP threadshot talks about defying nature, but it also can very well defy cognition/gnosis the same way you gotta breathe manually once you have taken notion of it.
Even a magic system that works off subconsciousness/Id would come pretty close to not being science-crunchable IMO.
: a lot of lads here are making a wild assumption that they could consistently manifest magical phenomena while being of stable mental state to observe it and catalogue it, to which I reply: doing magic could very well put you in a heightened or feverish state of mind, which could be another barrier against proper scholastic endeavours.
It's not so easy taking notes when tripping balls with some metamorphic numen trickling down and dripping from your fingertips through the wet electricity of your nervous system.
No, even phenomena that are altered by observation can be understood.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Not if those phenomena are conscious of your attempts to study it and purposefully warp those behaviors to buck whatever predictive capability you may have. You could say that with enough sample size you would be able to predict even the decisions the phenomena would make to try and defy your findings, but now we're getting into absurdity. Could you predict every decision a human will ever make in its life? Maybe theoretically, but it's practically impossible. Even more so with a consciousness more advanced than a human.
>Then make it non-repeatable and unreliable.
That is antithetical to how all real world occultists thought of magic.
Not either of you, but there's a decision that has to be made and usually made on assumption about how much of magical practice adheres to how it happened in real life. Shadowrun, for example, would fall apart if all magic was just poorly described science. Meanwhile less technologically pronounced settings like D&D campaigns can get away with being more vague about how magic does or doesn't behave like an empirically pursuable academic discipline like chemistry or engineering.
It is not.
Writing down that you gotta pronounce this and that before summoning Exu Capa Preta while placating him with Y and X offering is - at best - guesswork that might not necessarily be repeatable and reliable. Maybe Exu Capa Preta met Y'golonac at Kadath last night at feels particularly shitty about the endeavour, so your mind is gonna be crucified against the inner walls of your cranium, or whatever.
And the moment you figure out how to make it have a repeatable outcome, you have symbolic and highly spiritual science that will inevitably divest itself of everything not necessary. You, know, like what happened to turn Alchemy into Chemistry.
If its repeatable, it's beholden to causality. But that is still dancing around the real question of this thread. How the frick will that work in a game? If you can't systematize it, its not a gameable. This is /Traditional Games/ not navel gazing contrarian morons who shit up the board instead of prepping their next session.
There's no reason to believe the magic fire you conjure is the same as the magic fire I conjure. What compounds are present in the smoke? What temperature does it burn at? What light does it give off? Could be an infinite number of variants. Uniform spells just cause magical effects within certain expected parameters but are not perfectly replicateable or scaleable, which is why 'big fireball' is a different spell than 'small fireball' (if we're going off Vancian magic.)
Even if the underlying metaphysics of your Produce Flame spell is completely different from my Conjure Fire spell, if it is repeatable by you then I can learn how it is repeatable and its science.
Holy shit what a moronic take. Alchemy was a spiritual movement, about uplifting the self via transformation, and the proto-chemical stuff was just a byproduct.
Alchemy was simultaneously spiritual as well as material, you dolt. It was not a fricking byproduct, they went along hand-in-hand, like peanut butter and jam. “If we can transmute materials, why not the human spirit?”.
The first alchemical texts were written in code to prevent accusations of heresy. All that shit about the tincture of the Moon (silver colloid) and the essence of copper? That was code for spiritual concepts and it was just a coincidence that it worked. Now admittedly BECAUSE it got written down and became reproducible, it ended up being a technological application of proto-chemistry, but at no point was there an attempt to systemize the knowledge of physical reactions - it was all code and allegory.
>but at no point was there an attempt to systemize the knowledge of physical reactions
You appear to be insane. What arcane bullshit they chalked it up to does not actually matter. It was exactly that. Egyptian priests colouring their robes was a systemic practice they knew.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Holy shit, you're actually room temperature IQ. It absolutely fricking matters. Just because something is a systemic practice doesn't make it science. At BEST it can make it a technology, but I wouldn't even go that far. If you think you can put out candles by the sound of you clapping, you're not a scientist - you don't realize the principles at work there.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Anon, as I’ve said before, cavemen we’re going about the scientific method when they were fashioning wheels and starting campfires regardless of whether or not they acknowledged the process.
It’s all science, just shaven down over time.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>At BEST it can make it a technology, but I wouldn't even go that far
I hope you realize that a stick is a piece of technology
Trivially easily? Science is a philosophy of extracting approximate knowlege from empirical evidence. Math is not science because it isnt measured or modeled, it just is. Moral philosophy isnt a science because it is transends material empirical measurement. All magic needs to do is follow its own internally consistent laws like math or not be beholden to empirical measurements. You can always create a science of magic, but the best you'll manage is to count the joules in a fireball. You'll never be able to MAKE a fireball, which would be the domain of engineering anyway
Its only science if you can apply materialist empiricism to those laws. If visualizing a burning wheel always manifests a thunderbolt then you can measure that outcome sure, but you cant quantize a thought or construct an empirical model of that mechanism. It simply is.
>it's only science if you can apply it
Lol. Lmao even.
Science is a process. The simplest process.
—“Remember kids, the only difference between science and fricking around is writing it down.”
When someone asks how the erection works, they will be given a biological explanation on the processes of the penis, such as blood flow, sponginess, etc.
Science is, at its simplest, repeatability itself; and all the nuances that go along with it (not everything repeatable reproduces the same result, the replication crisis, etc).
Processes are truths.
Cavemen first learning how to make a campfire, were going about the scientific method regardless of whether they acknowledged it or not.
Technology is the application of scientific processes. The turning wheel, is technology. It is the symbol of progress.
Nature is a process. Nature runs.
Think interchangeably for once, as Einstein did, and you'll realize that nature is a scientist.
I'm sure you can make a science out of studying magic, but can you reduce it to equations to the same degree as with natural laws? It all depends on the system of magic at work.
For the example you gave of someone visualizing a burning wheel, it seems on par with someone saying the words 'burning wheel'.
There's not really some universal equation for how every persons' brain processes the same words, nor will those words occur at the exact same volume or frequency.
And yet people don't think of speech as magic or unscientific simply because there's no math problem for knowing what words will come out of someone's mouth in advance.
Scientists do still make an effort to study human brain activity in regards to certain tasks.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>people don't think of speech as magic
You mean other than all real world beliefs and fictional worlds where written or spoken words have power? Cultures where wizards sing their spells or speaking ill will cause bad things to happen. >unscientific simply because there's no math problem
But language does come down to forumulas. If you don't use the correct syntax, gender, etc. the sentence won't work. There's even whole philosophies and sciences dedicated to language and how it works.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>people don't think of speech as magic >You mean other than all real world beliefs and fictional worlds where written or spoken words have power? Cultures where wizards sing their spells or speaking ill will cause bad things to happen.
You're confusing "think of speech as magic" with "magic being performed through speech".
Noone thinks of speech as magic, as the anon says. If there was some sort of society or culture where speech would be considered to be inherently occult and magical, with only written and other nonverbal communication to be permitted aside from priests/witches/whatever, then yeah those kinda peoples would deem "speech of magic".
So your comparison is not entirely apt, I am afraid. >But language does come down to forumulas
It is formulaic but far from logical the way math problem is. There can be vast information density disparity between various languages aside from many, many other differences.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>No one thinks of speech as magic
Other than cultures where certain words are considered to have power on their own. >It is formulaic but far from logical the way math problem is. There can be vast information density disparity between various languages aside from many, many other differences.
Why do you keep bringing up math? Is it not science to you if it's not math?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Other than cultures where certain words are considered to have power on their own.
Well, speech is not inherently magic to them regardless, it's some words and phrases that are. There is a difference, the taboo only applies to the latter. Yet the entire concept of "speech" is not magical on its own, which is what I am arguing about. >Why do you keep bringing up math? Is it not science to you if it's not math?
Sorry for the confusion, I am not the anon you were replying to initially. Merely accentuating that human language(s) are very, very FAR from being optimized. So while some formulaics are applied, the language being formed is not exactly a 'scientific' process.
2 months ago
Anonymous
> If you don't use the correct syntax, gender, etc. the sentence won't work.
Sin tints wurk gud
2 months ago
Anonymous
Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It planely marques fore my revue
Miss steaks I kin knot sea
Equations just show the relationships and patterns. For example, binding a spirit can have a logarithmic energy demand, being very hard at first but easier as time goes on. Likewise, the difficulty of a fireball spell could be arithmatic with velocity but expodential with initial distance.
No its not moron. Doing something and seeing if it works isnt science, just experimentation. Trial and error are not science. Processes are truths? Thats not science, its baking. Its only science when the philosophy of science is applied, which is an empirical study of the natural world.
Science is not knowlege. You're born knowing what the colour red looks like, theres no science in that. Its not the laws of the universe. Science doesnt touch math or philosophy because science fundamentally does not ask why, simply what can be observed to be. Occam's razor is so dangerous because its foundational to science and is neither a scientific principle nor a philosophical argument, just a matter of opinion.
Nature is not a scientist because it has no fricking concept of empiricism. Most frickers with "scientist" in their job title arent even scientists, they're engineers at best. Science is not "any" process. Its not even really any process. Its a philosophy from which one very specific and limited process emerges, and only when applied within that philosophical context
>Its only science when the philosophy of science is applied >Doesn't describe what this philosophy is.
The philosophy of science is the family of questions regarding the limits and implications of science. It spans many different views and schools of thought. There isn't one 'philosophy' that can be 'applied'.
Perhaps you mean logical positivism, which is the school of thought that posits only phenomena that affect the physical world and are therefore at least in theory measurable fall in the category of knowledge. That is what people tend to mean when they complain about sciencism.
But in your whole post the only thing coming close to describing what your grievance is is this; >science fundamentally does not ask why
Which is not true for ANY scientific school of thought.
You're trying to invoke a sense of broader worldview, as if there's a more complete perspective on knowledge and empiricism that shows anon's science is just a small and limited part. But you can't actually articulate what this broader view is. You're just really insistent that it exists.
The truth is that science IS a very broad concept. And fantasy magic, which usually can actually affect the world around it, CAN be studied scientifically. Because simply writing down what is observed is all you need to do science.
If you're not an obstinate scientism moron warping "science" to mean "things that are known" regardless of how they're learned and how applicable it is, no.
If you're using the actual definition of science that makes it a clear subset of knowledge with clear requirements that it's possible for something to exist while failing to meet, then trivially.
Just make a horrible quagmire of a break in empiricism or determinism. Doesn't even need to be a TRUE break in it, merely beyond the available tools of measurement.
>The simplest process.
Actually read the fricking books, Philosophy of Science revolves around this not being the case.
>Science is, at its simplest, repeatability itself
No, its simplest form is applied empiricism, which requires empiricism to be useful.
>Cavemen first learning how to make a campfire, were going about the scientific method regardless of whether they acknowledged it or not.
Wrong, the scientific method is only useful because of much more specific considerations raising it above trial and error.
Magic is science, and science is magic. You would know that if you studied magic, or studied the study of magic. Every new method mastered, new theory crafted, new mechanism conceptualized and tested brings with it a new and often stranger mystery, and the number of people who can even conceptualize the question being asked, let alone answer it, shrinks. As above, so below.
No, the occult mysteries are pretty heavily coached in dualistic and subjective terms that take a MASSIVE shit on the requirements for scientific study to be useful.
>Science doesnt touch math or philosophy
.........
It's downstream from them, with philosophy defining the methodology and mathematics used to describe the results. As science cannot change them, a great many scientists are taught nothing of the deeper underpinnings in those areas because it doesn't matter to empirical study.
1s and 0s will exist regardless of an author's say, lmao. Even an absolute nothing (a zero) is a something (a one).
Sweet FRICK are you moronic. You are literally saying 0=1. And ignoring the reliance on quantization for mathematics to fit exactly.
About as theoretical as existence itself, given that a hypothetical anything that exists at all will never not have hypothetical quantification to it.
Whether the described quantization is a real property of the object is in fact important, and this constantly turning up sensible is the cause of many a hot metaphysical take.
>changing the rules
no rule was changed, no intention was altered, you weren't meant to use magic that way from the start, you simply didn't see that it wouldn't work until you approached the thing
Rules preventing it were added mid-campaign, which often takes the form of interference with previously established rules.
>If you're not an obstinate scientism moron warping "science" to mean "things that are known"
That's literally the definition of the word dating back to its Latin origins. Whatever "but that's not REAL science!" you want to come up with is just hipsterism.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>That's literally the definition of the word dating back to its Latin origins.
And the modern English word means something different, just as the Icelandic "all-thing" kept to a much narrower meaning of "thing" than the English cognate used in translation.
>No, the occult mysteries are pretty heavily coached in dualistic and subjective terms that take a MASSIVE shit on the requirements for scientific study to be useful.
The occult went hand-in-hand with scientific inquiry. >You are literally saying 0=1
This isn't an invalid statement.
>The occult went hand-in-hand with scientific inquiry.
And then they divided because the occult and scientific methods of inquiry did not actually work together.
>This isn't an invalid statement.
Proving one number is equal to another is the chief example of disproof by contradiction in mathematics for a reason.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>And the modern English word means something different
Your rectal cavity is not a valid dictionary.
2 months ago
Anonymous
philosophy is the search of truth. Mostly done through speculation and logic.
The field of Natural Philosophy developed methods to confirm the "truths" of the natural world in an objective way.
So you don't have different schools of thought with their different ideas, you can go out in the field and test their ideas and see what is actually correct.
Thus the ideas go from philosophy to consolidated knowledge, in latin scientia.
It's not just a matter of changing definition. That is literally what science is, the accumulated knowledge of humanity and the methods to obtain it.
If magic could be observed and studied in a way that is consistent and objective, enough to make magic formulas, it would be a science.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Mad, cutting-edge science can be described as "occult", you realize.
>No, the occult mysteries are pretty heavily coached in dualistic and subjective terms that take a MASSIVE shit on the requirements for scientific study to be useful.
The occult went hand-in-hand with scientific inquiry. >You are literally saying 0=1
This isn't an invalid statement.
2 months ago
Anonymous
average texan: THAY"RE TEACHING DEMONOLOGY IN SCHOOLS! GET THE ROPES! GET THE GUNS! REVOLUTION 2 BEGINS NOW YEEHAW!
The diagram is somewhat misleading. Science isn't just Frick Around and Find Out, it's Frick Around, Find Out, and Tell Others. If you don't tell other people eventually, it's not science but just pointless navel gazing.
Of course, if you're going to tell others and don't want to look like a total idiot when you do it, you're going to try to be careful with how you do your fricking around, finding out, and telling others.
you're talking about rigor, which isn't so much science as it is bookkeeping.
it's still important since anything worth remembering is worth writing down, but the core of science remains "frick around and find out"
what the hell is this thread
there are multiple fictional universes where magic is drawn from things that are inherently illogical and a fool's errand to try and understand
literary, maybe, but in games, especially ones where magic is a thing players can use, it is inevitable for a logic of magic to form, and from there for it to become a form of science.
or to put it another way, anything that can be fricked with can be found out about.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>you're talking about rigor, which isn't so much science as it is bookkeeping.
Telling others isn't just bookkeeping. It means that scientific knowledge tends to be cumulative and corrected towards a true and effective description of the world, at least at a societal level. That's a critical aspect; it implies that science ends up building a reasonably accurate model of reality.
Without it you can just have a bunch of loners doing lolrandumb shit in secret until it kills them, and it will probably be the same set of stupid blunders that kills each of them. At least with science, you get whole new exciting ways to become unliving!
Einstein once said that while Beethoven constructed his music, Mozart's ''was so pure that it seemed to have been ever-present in the universe, waiting to be discovered by the master." Einstein believed much the same of physics, that beyond observations and theory lay the music of the spheres, waiting for all time.
In the end, we're just repurposing ever-present processes into other processes. Practical empiricism. That's what technology is: the application of scientific information, or processes. The universe is as much a "machine" as it is a concert. It runs. It's music. It's -the- orchestra.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why should I care about how music seemed to Einstein? It's great that he felt that way, but did he have any evidence that might convince anyone at all?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Did you read the rest of the post?
2 months ago
Anonymous
The rest of your post makes no mention of anything relating to my questions. Either respond to what I asked or stop posting.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Okay, dolt.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>In the end, we're just repurposing ever-present processes into other processes. Practical empiricism.
I mean, if you decide to purposefully ignore the fact that Science is primarily about knowledge and not material applications, sure.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Science is primarily about knowledge and not material applications, sure.
But that's wrong, when technology is the material application of science.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Science is not primarily about technology, never was. You are discounting the entirety of science's logical development. 99% of Science is about definitions and conceptualization, and only a part of that applies to material concepts.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Science is not primarily about technology, never was.
Why do you keep saying moronic shit?
2 months ago
Anonymous
This is a phenomenally moronic post.
> Knowledge has always only been about getting material result right there right now. There never was any foundational research at any time. Logic, mereology, ontology, all that was aimed at getting you your new IPhone.
Kek I'm always amazed at how many fricking morons I rub shoulders with on this site.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>when technology is the material application of science.
What is the technological application of political sciences conceived as the architectonic of all sciences?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>What is the technological application of political sciences
Media power and psychological cancer mostly
2 months ago
Anonymous
Sure, but that coin has more than two faces, that's the thing.
2 months ago
Anonymous
What do you mean, sure? It wasn't a yes or no question. Answer it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Idiot.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Scientific inquiry (the scientific method) and scientific application (technology) are two sides of the same coin.
Isn't /tg/ supposed to be one of the nerdier boards? How the frick do you morons not understand that if something exists there is cause-and-effect logic to its existence, even in fiction?
isn't wrong and it's gross and even disgusting how argumentatively, childishly ignorant the lot of you are.
Because he's factually wrong. That's not what science is.
2 months ago
Anonymous
That's literally the scientific method, and you're the sore (likely underage) loser in the argument.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>That's literally the scientific method
Sure, but the argument rests on a etymological fallacy which reduces the meaning of picrel to "experience" as a whole.
This whole thread is simply highly indicative of how poorly educated the average modern individual is, otherwise you would know that the historical alternative to something falling under the realm of causality is for it to fall under the realm of intentionality.
2 months ago
Anonymous
just because you can apply the scientific method to it does not make it a science.
also,
Isn't /tg/ supposed to be one of the nerdier boards? How the frick do you morons not understand that if something exists there is cause-and-effect logic to its existence, even in fiction?
isn't wrong and it's gross and even disgusting how argumentatively, childishly ignorant the lot of you are.
you assume magic has reliable cause and effect. If 2+2 equals 4, or [null_value] or fish or rutabaga sideways purple indigo 21 foxtrot delta, and it's not the result of failure to control variables, the effect really is entirely disjointed from the cause other than an effect is produced, then it cannot BE scienced upon, because science requires repeatability and falsifiability of hypothesis. You can't prove that 2+2 will never equal duck instead of fish, nor can you prove that it will ever equal fish again.
2 months ago
Anonymous
The relevant term here is "non-deterministic". Irreducible variance can pretty quickly send something far outside the domains of available scientific study.
It's because you're reducing the keystone of what sets our age apart from others to a moronic aphorism wildly inappropriately trying to give it the weight of prior ages.
Nature isn't science. We can use science to make predictions about nature, and to narrow down possible explanations or mechanisms underlying what we observe.
Okay smart guy, go measure math >ooh 1+1 is always 2 i measured it
Yeah with math. You validated it with itself shithead, it simply cannot be anf will never need to be externally validated. You cant even tell me if math is created or discovered, get outta here with this 40iq "we measured it" bullshit. What's next? You used a randomized controlled trial to test lf you exist because you think? You took out a rationaliter and counted the logic particles emitted by expressing that this statement is false? Frickin autistic and im not talking socially underdeveloped, im talking wears a crash helmet to the park
This is the third time ive pinned you and you've resorted to this lazy low effort shitposting. And id just ignore it like the other two times but you should understand something first. You arent that good of a troll, you're actually quite bad at it. You might think you're at least passable since ive spent the time formulating real replies, but as i mentioned dodging your weak attempts is effortless for me because my brain is enormous. Similarly explaining extremely basic highschool philosophy to you is something i could do in my sleep. Its actually easier for me to dunk on you like this than it is to call you a gay, since that way id actually have to find a decent reaction image to go with it. Feel free to cope and seethe however you want about this, but my response will be just as overwhelming
it's the opposite. science is a branch of mathematics that deals with the observable universe
i.e. i can take -(e^i*pi) and tell you what number i get. that is math. it is not science. it has nothing to do with the real world.
>transends material empirical measurement
It's 'transcends', and it is certainly possible to determine how whatever brainwashing you've been subject to has created the arbitrary opinions you mistake for universal moral truth.
>You'll never be able to MAKE a fireball, which would be the domain of engineering anyway
So why bring it up, then?
Magic is science, and science is magic. You would know that if you studied magic, or studied the study of magic. Every new method mastered, new theory crafted, new mechanism conceptualized and tested brings with it a new and often stranger mystery, and the number of people who can even conceptualize the question being asked, let alone answer it, shrinks. As above, so below.
>The greatest mystery the universe offers is not life but size. Size encompasses life, and the Tower encompasses size. The child, who is most at home with wonder, says: Daddy, what is above the sky? And the father says: The darkness of space. The child: What is beyond space? The father: The galaxy. The child: Beyond the galaxy? The father: Another galaxy. The child: Beyond the other galaxies? The father: No one knows.
>You see? Size defeats us. For the fish, the lake in which he lives is the universe. What does the fish think when he is jerked up by the mouth through the silver limits of existence and into a new universe where the air drowns him and the light is blue madness? Where huge bipeds with no gills stuff it into a suffocating box and cover it with wet weeds to die?
>Or one might take the tip of the pencil and magnify it. One reaches the point where a stunning realization strikes home: The pencil tip is not solid; it is composed of atoms which whirl and revolve like a trillion demon planets. What seems solid to us is actually only a loose net held together by gravity. Viewed at their actual size, the distances between these atoms might become league, gulfs, aeons. The atoms themselves are composed of nuclei and revolving protons and electrons. One may step down further to subatomic particles. And then to what? Tachyons? Nothing? Of course not. Everything in the universe denies nothing; to suggest an ending is the one absurdity.
Okay so, what if we made a tabletop system where martials and other physics-based classes ran on granular number crunching but spellcasting had an entirely parallel system of rules that ran exclusively on narrative?
>Is it even possible to keep science away from magic?
yes, you make magic governed by secretive sentient faeries who are HUGE FRICKING DICKS and change the rules whenever someone starts to understand what they do and how they do it
or straight up murder the guy
Something I see as a misconception that people have about magic is that 'Magic shouldn't be replicable and repeatable' along with 'you shouldn't be able to understand the forced behind magic'. This is basically antithetical to all branches of real world occultism, both western and eastern.
Those who practiced occultism and believed themselves to be magicians did so with enormous amounts of specific knowledge and believed what they did was a process one could learn then make use of again and again. It required constant learned specifics. The modern idea is born more out of fantasy novels, but even then fantasy novels do not for the most part act like that either. It seems to be primarily born out of media illiteracy and a lack of historical knowledge of occultism.
I think it's because people want to make magic even more mystical than it is by severing the historical progression from magic to science so they can each be their own thing. While in IRL the people figuring out mechanical astrophysics were doing so with incredibly spiritual and esoteric assumptions about what they were observing.
>Something I see as a misconception that people have about magic is that 'Magic shouldn't be replicable and repeatable' along with 'you shouldn't be able to understand the forced behind magic'
Never said that, was just providing a counter-argument to the OP saying that it's very much feasible.
There can be several reasons why it can be lucrative though, such as keeping your setting more mystique. >This is basically antithetical to all branches of real world occultism, both western and eastern.
Is it? I admit I don't frequent /x/ that much but the mega trove there has some neat books that I use for inspo/RP material. Most those books aren't really revolving around trying to "game" the "occult system" so to speak IMO. A huge chunk of that kinda stuff deals with symbol and pleasing certain entities, so saying that the impetus was making it as replicable as possible is a bit questionable I think, considering the method at hand.
>It seems to be primarily born out of media illiteracy and a lack of historical knowledge of occultism.
No, it's born from morons who want to be homosexuals by dragging the existence of actual convenient magic in a fantasy world to an extreme that makes it loses its aesthetic/narrative/role
>we should start mass producing wands to make fireball-gatlings for soldiers! >we should use portals to create infinite energy! >we should be able to use pocket dimensions as grenades!
If the tone of your game is shattered by wands of fireballs existing and being something that could be reliably created, then maybe you should just not include wands of fireballs?
having to design a magic system that preemptively addresses any and all sort of abuse or gotcha someone can think of is pointless, the GM can and should put arbitrary limites when they arise
fireball wands exist
they can be made
no, you can't start mass producing them
why?
the answer doesn't need to be known, now stick to the game
2 months ago
Anonymous
>having to actually design a setting that works with the tone I want is too hard!
Sounds like you're just a shit DM.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You're just too deaf or dumb to listen to reason.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You haven't given any reason.
You're running a high fantasy game and then suddenly getting pissy and changing the rules when your players actually use magic to their advantage.
You do realize that there are games other than D&D out there where magic is actually limited in the ways you want it to be?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>changing the rules
no rule was changed, no intention was altered, you weren't meant to use magic that way from the start, you simply didn't see that it wouldn't work until you approached the thing
2 months ago
Anonymous
Then why don't the rules say you can't use magic that way?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>no, you can't start mass producing them >why?
Because you'd have to procure the equipment for mass producing them, then you'd have to get the raw materials for producing them, then you'd have to acquire land to construct a facility, then you'd have to construct the facility, then you'd have to convince the local lord that it's okay to construct the facility there, then you'd have to secure the materials you'd procured from thieves while it's being constructed, then you'd have to deal with foreign adversaries sabotaging your plant because they're nervous about a lord who can mass-produce wands of fireball, then you'd have to find skilled labor to actually run the damn wand factory once it's built, then you'd have to deal with securing a contract for the wand factory....
Really, all of this shit is its own adventure, but way more boring.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I think the real answer to 'why?' should be something like 'it ruins the tone of the game and turns it into something else' and 'if it were possible then people smarter than you would have already done it and there would be no marketshare for you to pick up.'
2 months ago
Anonymous
Sure, but if your players really insist on making this factory anyway, let them deal with red tape and theft and stonewalling while the BBEG finishes casting the grand global rape ritual.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, absolutely. The forces of good, evil, and neutrality will all want to frick with them for their own reason, the local lord will not appreciate the threat to the monopoly of violence the state enjoys, some frickwits on the assembly line will get the idea of striking, unionizing, and communism, an organization analogous to the Pinkertons will offer to help at increasingly extortionate rates, the thieves' guild will demand protection fees, rival fireball wand factories will poach the best staff, rival fireball wand producers will say the PC is a pedophile whose wands are made from the foreskins of elven babies, etc.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>no, you can't start mass producing them >why?
Because you'd have to procure the equipment for mass producing them, then you'd have to get the raw materials for producing them, then you'd have to acquire land to construct a facility, then you'd have to construct the facility, then you'd have to convince the local lord that it's okay to construct the facility there, then you'd have to secure the materials you'd procured from thieves while it's being constructed, then you'd have to deal with foreign adversaries sabotaging your plant because they're nervous about a lord who can mass-produce wands of fireball, then you'd have to find skilled labor to actually run the damn wand factory once it's built, then you'd have to deal with securing a contract for the wand factory....
Really, all of this shit is its own adventure, but way more boring.
>Anons ITT make a Factorio TTRPG
/tg/ is pretty based I gotta say.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Nope, crafting a wand of fireball costs 5625 gp and 450. It takes 11 days, or 12 if you round up. That's it. If the fireball is assumed to be cast at minimum caster level of 5, that's 50 charges x 5d6 = 250d6 = 250 x 3.5 = 875 total average damage per wand.
An EL 3 encounter returns 900 gp. A single CR 3 monster is an EL 3 encounter (pretty self-evident, but you can verify this with the SRD encounter calculator). A centaur is CR 3 and has standard treasure, so we can use it as our "average monster". A centaur has 26 average HP. 875 / 26 = 33 if we round down. So one wand of fireball can kill about 33 centaurs on average, which is also 33 EL 3 encounters. 33 x 900 = 29,700 gp, which is 5.28 times the cost of crafting a wand of fireball. Even if our centaurs save against fireballs 50% of the time, we can still make a considerable profit. Thanks to the infinite renewable resource of wandering monsters, the amount of gold we can acquire per unit of time is only limited by the population of intelligent beings that can craft wands.
2 months ago
Anonymous
450 xp*, that is. Also I forgot to note : 1 EL 3 encounter generates 225 xp, so we will also be bringing in about 15 times as much xp per wand as they cost to craft.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'll mass produce them then.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Or you could play a game like ACKS where you can in fact mass-produce wands of fireball. Yeah it takes like, 3 months per wand, but yeah, you could do it.
No, I'll behave as if my character were really in the world, and making rational decisions in their best interests. Anything else would be bad roleplaying.
It's probably because, had all those rituals worked back then, they certainly don't work *now*, which brings up several eerie, even alien implications,
So who or what is the on/off switch? 'The Magic Goes Away' is a frustrating trope.
>Then make it non-repeatable and unreliable.
That is antithetical to how all real world occultists thought of magic.
Mysticism (theurgical rituals, shamanism, gnostic mysteries, etc) is a personal journey to esotericists. Closer to psychology, or a soft science.
What is magic to one is also not magic to another. Subjection and semantics matter.
Granted, a lot of readers hate "it jus werks" magic. Handled poorly, it can rob a story or any tension when poorly defined magic can just solve whatever complication presents itself in a scene.
For a tabletop game with a party of players, not so much. There are workarounds like random effect tables or saves like in Shadowrun that make things feel a little less precise, but it's a game at the end of the day. Rules are needed, and players don't want to feel like magic is handled in a mother may I fashion from the DM. They want agency.
There's nothing really wrong with magic as science if the author thinks of an appreciable reason for why magic doesn't solve everything, why everyone doesn't just uses magic, or why magicians don't rule the entire world. The best magic system needs clearly defined limits and drawbacks.
Unless you're playing in some fantasy commie utopia you don't even need to address this - the answers are self-evident even beyond 'there'd be no fricking game if it did, dingus.'
>why magicians don't rule the entire world
Few ever really spell this out very well when they bother to address it. This is a question actually worth asking and answering.
>why magic doesn't solve everything, why everyone doesn't just uses magic, or why magicians don't rule the entire world
Replace "magic" with "science" and ask the same questions about real life.
Science does rule the world though, the current state of the world is only possible thanks to nukes, in a world where people can potentially turn into walking nukes those walking nukes would rule the world
Easy. Trying to solve it drives you mad. The more you try to perfectly measure the distance and effect of an arcane spell, the more it changes. It actively resists knowing. The most successful wizards shrug their shoulders and say "hey, it works, doesn't it?"
you can if you keep the rules of magic changing forever.
maybe tying them specifically to the collective subconscious so they stay definitionally inscrutable?
>Dungeons & Dragons is closer to science-fiction once you realize how robotic it is.
The material components for spells back when the game had flavour and SOVL were things like the ingredients for gunpowder for a fireball or scrying spells using shit that would look like a television.
magic is the leftover stuff that didn't work when we started developing science.
Before that it was miracles obtained by praying to gods or demons and having them grant you wishes.
Or by special people who had power themselves the alter reality.
The existence of magic would imply that the nature of reality is fundamentally different from ours. That reality doesn't follow strict and predictable laws of physics and probability, but is molded by the will of special beings.
Of course if you treat magic as some special energy that can be used to alter reality then you turn it into a science. And for game mechanics it's hard to do it differently.
No, but also realize that we didn't have formalized science until recently and that people (craftsmen, engineers, philosophers of the natural) all kept their shit secret because the knowledge of the process gives them power.
This still happens to this day in certain crafts. Try to find the formulas for song writing, you can't, they exist, but are guarded by the guilds pumping out music.
You probably could turn magic to science, but considering it's power, it would likely be a bunch of secrets hidden by individual wizards, nations, and guilds and what information they DO put out would be either wrong or so inconsequential the masses can have it
It's mostly an argument over semantics.
A somewhat plausible definition of science would be >The study of nature, how it works and how it can be manipulated.
So is magic a part of nature or something else? it depends on how you define nature.
If everything is nature than nature as a distinction becomes somewhat meaningless because what's NOT a part of nature?
It's kind of like the question "is a human an animal?", again it's semantics, strictly speaking yes but for most people animals exclude humans. >What's a zoo? >It's this place where animals are kept in enclosures and displayed to visitors >Are there humans there? >Duh, who do you think works in the zoo? the chimps? >No no, I mean are there human enclosures? >What the frick? no >Why not?
I'd argue that if we can't apply the scientific method to something than it's "beyond science", at least until we reach new understandings that gives us something to work with.
So while magicians can "use" magic to make certain things happen relatively reliably it's extremely difficult to impossible to quantify and research magic itself for whatever reason.
Kind of like with consciousness, we all agree it exists but what it really is, where it comes from, why and how are impossible to answer given our current understanding.
So in a sense consciousness is "beyond" science, not because it's necessarily above the idea of causality or it literally lacks all logic but because excluding certain utterly untestable hypotheses we don't even have the tools to begin working on that question.
>"I draw the magical symbol on the portal to open the gateway." >It doesn't work
Sciencegays BTFO'd, science destroyed. Cause and effect undone in 3 simple words. The entire field of physics obliterated as if by an atom bomb. 910 scientists agree this shit just doesn't make any sense! Evil cultist states in The Sun that hypergeometry is the only topic that should be taught in school. Oppenheimer movie sequel cancelled.
Good luck creating an exception for every single statement you'll make about this magical phenomenon. In the end the amount of literature written on my magical gateway will be so extensive that no human being could ever comprehend all of it at once, or even learn it all in a single lifetime. It'll snake on, forever, endlessly, throughout all time. The universe will end long before it is done being categorised.
Yeah and the cause is that Magic the semi-sapient force decided that nah, doesn't feel like it. No portals until it feels better. No, it won't tell you when it'll feel good.
Okay, but what lead up to magic becoming a semi-sapient, practically-living thing? Everything starts from something, somewhere. Life on this planet didn’t just appear out of nowhere.
2 months ago
Anonymous
That doesn't matter. The point is, the proper way to do mysterious magic is to have it be occult in the literal sense of the word, where the principles are obscured from you and can never be known. Thus it can't ever be a science, because it would lack internal consistency. Today a fireball requires a pound of bat guano and some oil; the next day it's the laughter of a child and for a cat to try to mispronounce the word "autodidact," and the next four days it just won't work.
2 months ago
Anonymous
That just leads me back to
There is always a cause. You're basically just saying magic is a gap in information. Which is fair.
which is precisely the point. Magic is a proxy. A placeholder. “Magic”.
In a world of science, where everything is deconstructed/reconstructed, you eventually realize that magic IS “magic”. It’s applied wonder, mystery, horror, heresy, etc.
You can’t really hard define magic when it’s different for everyone. Relative. Subjective. Magic in a world of science survives as something to describe, not something to define. Science itself is descended from past magical, occult thought, see
>No, the occult mysteries are pretty heavily coached in dualistic and subjective terms that take a MASSIVE shit on the requirements for scientific study to be useful.
The occult went hand-in-hand with scientific inquiry. >You are literally saying 0=1
This isn't an invalid statement.
Christ, even math was treated as magic for thousands of years. If math was magic, why not anything else?
Magic IS a gap, and it DOES “exist” the same way cold, darkness, or holes, exist. It’s not supposed to exist, to exist.
Sometimes just calling something magic is enough. In a post-apocalyptic setting, all you need is some mad dabbler scavenging at the old and dangerous relics of the past. Bam, you’ve got yourself a wizard.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Not at all. IF it can be understood at some point, if there exists somewhere some total ruleset of the way magic works, then it's not magic in the mysterious sense. It can be algorithmized eventually.
If, on the other hand, there will always exist SOME level of obfuscation, that can never be understood and reproduced, then no, it cannot be a science. You could be cheeky and do the thing in math where you say "Okay, and we're neglecting <property>" because the equation works fine without it, but with magic you should not be able to do that.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Not at all. IF it can be understood at some point, if there exists somewhere some total ruleset of the way magic works, then it's not magic in the mysterious sense. It can be algorithmized eventually.
You’re basically claiming there’s nothing there, then, since if it exists, it can hypothetically be understood, even if only by higher dimensional aliens, not us.
If your idea of magic is “it cannot be understood EVER”, then, well, you’re sorely misguided. What is magic to us three-dimensional humans likely isn’t magic to fifth-dimensional beings.
Or are you suggesting that authors like Tolkien are idiots, and they’re wrong for calling the black machines of Mordor sorcery? You do you, man.
You seem to want magic to be some specific THING, which doesn’t really work.
>That just means it's curiously conditional or considerate in some way, moron. Intelligent even. What if magic is like a living thing?
I cant seem to find it but doesnt Deedlit from RotLW cast magic by asking spirits to do things in some scenes?
Is it even possible for you to stop making this thread?
If someone held a knife to your dick and told you to stop ritualposting, would you still do it?
Yeah, it totally is. We need only disassemble a sufficient number of fighters and wizards until we eliminate everything that isn't the difference that allows one to cast spells.
You mean science as in the art of writing down things you observe and trying to guess what might happen next based on your previous observations or do you mean The Science which is the art of parroting moronic propaganda which is self-evidently untrue but questioning the orthodoxy gets you lambasted by the faithful?
Magic needs to be mysterious and unknowable. When my players cast spells, I flip a coin behind the scenes. Heads, the power works. Tails, it fails, magic is not predictable after all.
Technically, yes, the scientific method can be applied to most systems of magic.
However, the average smug online tech bro attempting to do so would probably get himself blown up, or eaten by an outer entity, even using some of the safest systems.
Sort of but it ends up being this wild, unusable thing that you need to fight and destroy before it kills someone. The moment it's controllable and manageble it becomes something that can be studied and understood.
>Is it even possible to keep science away from magic?
Yes, make magic based on Law instead of Science. It's already the same basically. > Spend your time deciphering big books for answers. > 50% of the difficulty is figuring out the correct calendar date for specific acts. > Can literally handwave anything away. Husband and Wife? Nope, not anymore! But you still gotta pay for your kid as if it was (but it basically isn't)! Now ain't THAT dark magic? > Old legal theory is basically magic theory. Legal property was the reunion of 4 powers into a single person : Usus, Abusus, Fructus and Destructus (namely, right to use, right to use in a way that alter the nature, right to the fruit or child, and right to destroy). > Even at the best of times things aren't 100% set in stone. (Seriously frick IP law I can never call a judgement right I've lost so many bets ffs)
Yes, by having the scientific method not be formalized and lionized in your campaign world. Nuclear power has existed for a frick of a long time but our ability to harness it is very recent because we only really started figuring out how the scientific process works a few hundred years ago. If your setting hasn't gone through an equivalent of the Enlightenment, and your magic is dangerous enough that poking at its attributes can lead to harsh and/or fatal accidents, then you're justified in saying that the rules of magic are not really well known, with what we DO know having only being discovered at a high price in blood.
Just keep in mind that your players will likely see an opportunity to innovate, so you'll need to be prepared to enforce consequences. Are they clever and lucky in their methods? Then if the dice say so, they can glean a few more answers. Are they stupid and/or unlucky? Well, hopefully you've been very clear what the potential consequences could be as you roll to determine their fate.
easy, have magic change the answers when you try to scientifically observe or record it.
If you want to be really spicy about it, you even make it retroactive so it actively gaslights the motherfrickers that try.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
if you consider "eh it just happens we don't really get it and there's no known, or for that matter because we can't measure it, knowable, cause" as "understanding" something, then sure. I would just call that "repeatable."
another good example is "dark matter." The math doesn't line up for the prosaic explanation, so we imagined a hypothetical substance we have no evidence for other than the mismatched math, and gave it a name, that way the discrepancy feels more "sciencey." It's not an answer, it's just a nice way to pretend you have one so you don't have to admit ignorance. Repeatable, but not actually understood.
string theory is another good example, it's technically an explanation, but it's simply by no definition empirical. If it can't be tested, it's by definition unscientific, that's the same reason scientists won't accept something like "God made it then fricked off forever" as a possible theory, there's no way to test it. The only difference between attributing it to string theory or your chosen flavor of god is using jargon and a bunch of math to gussy it up. Just like uncertainty and dark matter, effects of a possible String ToE are repeatable, even describable, we call them the Fundamental Forces, but not actually understood, or understandable.
We get so far, and then we hit these roadblocks where despite holding up to that point, the models completely break down, almost like we've hit something that refuses to be modeled properly. hic sunt dracones.
HARD disagree.
This is sophist semantic bullshit, the autism of "Some words mean EVERYTHING, some words mean NOTHING so long as I can make an argument."
That shit may impress some fat c**t in your high school debate club, but it's just empty dweebery in the rest of the world. >Unnatural cannot exist. Nothing is unnatural because everything sprung forth from the cause and effect of nature, so even a concrete masturbation chamber is natural because human instinct lead to making it! >Supernatural cannot exist, because everything has a causal reason for existing and supernatural events cannot be causal, therefore humanity invented the word for no reason because we're moronic, apparently.
I don't know if it's just one dedicated autist pushing this stuff here, or if there's a cadre of you. Stop sniffing your own farts. Words exist for a reason, they have meanings, no amount of sophist semantic juggling can obviate that and render the universe down into your self-satisfied smug sterility.
For example: You're a gay. You can sit there and argue about how everyone is technically a gay and the term is meaningless, or how nobody is a gay and the term is meaningless, you can apply the concept of homosexualry to everything or nothing but it's all just empty whining and you're still a gay.
Everything that exists is natural, sorry. There is no experiment you can devise to distinguish between a carbon atom that's part of a plant and a carbon atom that's part of a building.
If you weren't a moron you would understand that my argument isn't against that logic, but the utility of it. It means nothing. It's empty sophistry. It's quibbling about definition and vocabulary as if it's supposed to make a point about reality rather than just being self-masturbatory hot air.
What is there to gain or add to the discourse with that concept? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Let me ask you a question: If instead of using the terms natural or unnatural, I used the terms natural and shiskenagoon, where shiskenagoon's definition is "That which exists without the contribution of a sapient being.", would that satiate you?
Perhaps. But you know what? That's generally how people already mean things when they use those fricking words! You just think being purposefully obtuse and deliberately meddling with semantics is wisdom, when it's actually the opposite. You ACTUALLY think being so dumb that you either can't or won't comprehend context is a legitimate intellectual exercise. Frankly, it's pathetic.
You're just being an obnoxious twat and confusing that with some kind of intellectual flexing.
Just frick off with it. Your arguments have no purpose other than self fellatio for some arcane purpose only you can understand.
Of course it means something. It means there is no such thing as unnatural objects, beings, or substances. Re-read my post if you're still having trouble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
You're literally spinning your wheels on something that is almost textbook sophistry.
That's why I have a problem with your shitty argument. It's not that I can't understand it, it's just that I think making those arguments in the first place inherently makes you a fricking douchebag.
Not a fallacy, actually. Just an accurate description of reality.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It literally is a fallacy, lol. That's why I even gave you a link to the exact crap you're doing so that you couldn't weasel out of it.
If you care so much about "accurately describing reality", then you'll just have to cope with it or be a hypocrite.
fictional worlds goverened by their own natural laws still need nerds to study and observe its phenomenon.
wizardry are just scientists in fictional world were shit like "aether" is a legit force of nature.
science
i.e.
empiricism seeks to understand observable phenomenon , if fireball is cast by quantum psychological effects in an epiphenominal universe or if its by sending psychic messages to the god of fire it doesnt matter as long as the process of casting is sound and valid and has the most measure of veracity.
If you make magic completely unpredictable and random, both in causes and effects, I guess.
If it's possible to study magic, see patterns in it and figure out that if you consistently do X you get a result Y (light something on fire, turn someone into a frog, etc.), then it just becomes another scientific discipline.
Phenomena are not science and whoever wrote that is profoundly ignorant and low IQ. "Science" is applied empiricism. A chemical reaction isn't science, nor is a car engine, a microscope, or a gun. Those are technologies. Science is very specifically the act of performing a certain kind of empirical experiment, and if you are not doing an empirical experiment, you are not doing science.
Just blithely saying "durr well I understand it so it's science" is laughable. Mathematics works fine and it isn't a science, how exactly do you empirically test the Pythagorean theorem? How do you empirically test multiplying a positive by a negative number? You don't. Euclid's Postulates are all logical, but not empirical, you can't actually test their limits because they include things like "you can extend a line infinitely," which can't be practically tested. Presumably magic works the same way.
>lol >Is this an AI trying to de-educate?
He's not wrong? The science is about the object, not the object itself. A chemical reaction isn't science, but there is scientific knowledge about that reaction.
No, that's a factual statement. Those are technologies. Science is when you conduct an experiment to prove a hypothesis. A physical object is not science nor can it be, it can be tested or created with science maybe--but not all are. The misuse of this term is the cause of a great number of epistemological problems.
No they are not. Science is a method for testing information. Technology is an application of world-knowledge to bring about a result.
These are not "two sides of the same coin" if the coin is Information, one is something that you use to get coin, and the other is something that you buy with it. Information, or Truth, is a discrete entity that exists in either case and has interplay with the other two, but it is entirely possible to get information without employing the scientific method, and it is entirely possible to use technology without understanding it.
My point here is epistemological, which appears to confuse you, as you are the only one who is mad here lmao.
>Tough shit. There is science to the way you're thinking, right now.
Potentially you could use science to describe something about what I'm doing, but my thinking is not science, and I am not conducting a scientific experiment presently, so that's essentially a non-statement.
>but my thinking is not science
There aren't processes to the brain, is that it? Neurons don't exist? Electrical signals aren't a thing? Totally not real. Nope.
I can't take the time out of my Easter to actually back you up on this in detail but know that you're right and I know you're right.
The people you're talking with are completely asinine and don't know what the frick they're talking about.
>he thinks math isn't empirical
Okay. Math is either too pure to be a science, or it's the purest science of all, you magnificent dolt.
"One plus one always equals two."
"Alright, show me your theory."
"What?"
"What?"
Math will never -not- exist. It -has- to exist, since it goes along with existence. An author can't even remove it from their fiction. It is absolutely inseparable.
It, math, is perhaps the most empirical thing in existence. It is the "shape" existence takes. There will never -not- be hypothetical quantification to something.
Yes, even a nothing is a something, and a zero is a one.
You've completely missed the point, which is that empiricism is not the first or the only way of ascertaining truth. Pure reason can produce correct answers. Mathematics is the most visible field of philosophy for this reason, but a field of -philosophy- it nevertheless is.
Empiricism is the junior partner of this relationship. Science, relatively recent, one method among many in philosophy's vast arsenal of methods. It is completely wrong to the point of being laughable to assert science as the parent category.
Natural philosophy is the precursor to physics, which is the 'all-encompassing' science. But that's besides the point. Even cavemen had science. Acknowledgement of the scientific method does not matter.
>lol >Is this an AI trying to de-educate?
He's not wrong? The science is about the object, not the object itself. A chemical reaction isn't science, but there is scientific knowledge about that reaction.
Anon. If something exists, there will be hypothetical science to it, regardless if we reach it or not.
Everything is science. How much does this upset you? Where did science touch you?
No, what I said, and what YOU just said, is that everything is not science, because science is not a thing, it is a process that can be used to understand some things.
>Anon. If something exists, there will be hypothetical science to it,
But that science may be intentional instead of causal in its nature, i.e. it is phenomenological instead of empirical. >Everything is science. How much does this upset you? Where did science touch you?
Why do you have to be such a c**t about this? This is an academic disagreement, one which is VERY widespread in philosophical circles, it does not warrant this type of engagement unless you feel threatened in your position.
>intentional instead of causal
What the frick does this even mean? That the universe is voluntarism? That's no different from Isaac Newton thinking the universe is too moronic to just exist on its own; "It HAS to be hand held by something!" >phenomenological instead of empirical.
You don't know what empirical means. There is order even to chaos. Even God will have logic to Him. >Why do you have to be such a c**t about this?
Because it's blatant common sense. If something exists, there will be an explanation to it. A background to its foreground. I don't care how weird it happens to be.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>That the universe is voluntarism?
Holy fricking Christ that this is how you interpreted this shows me the extent of your education to a point where I'm just not going to bother at all. Fricking read some philosophy man.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Can't. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Can you pinpoint it specifically, locally, zoom in on it, extract it? No. Because its a virtual entity, not an actual real one. And yet you could not empirically predict the behavior of any thrown object without accounting for it.
Therefore science is not purely, entirely about real existing objects and causal forces, it never has, it doesn't pretend to be, and if you had any interaction with mathematicians or logicians in academic circles you would be aware of this.
>Anon. If something exists, there will be hypothetical science to it,
But that science may be intentional instead of causal in its nature, i.e. it is phenomenological instead of empirical. >Everything is science. How much does this upset you? Where did science touch you?
Why do you have to be such a c**t about this? This is an academic disagreement, one which is VERY widespread in philosophical circles, it does not warrant this type of engagement unless you feel threatened in your position.
Also fricking beat those digits you motherfrickers.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>the ignorant underage is a 'get' gay to boot
No wonder youre so moronic
2 months ago
Anonymous
I like how you think all philosophy is valid, when it just isn't. "Science is just one path!", lol, okay. Science, or natural philosophy, is the most concrete form of philosophy, sorry. It won out for a reason. Existence has to first, y'know, EXIST, in order to exist.
>Anon. If something exists, there will be hypothetical science to it, regardless if we reach it or not. >if there is a hypothetical thing it is a thing
lol no.
No, science is a specific process carried out by intelligent beings. It doesn't exist outside of a mind. The universe doesn't "run" on anything. The laws of physics aren't laws, that's just a colloquialism. They are a set of models that we use to describe what we experience, and make predictions. When our predictions are contradicted by reality, we update our models.
Math is not and cannot be "correct" in the sense you mean. It is a set of rules, from which one can infer tautologies. "1+1=2" is true if you choose axioms such that it is true. "1+1=green" is true if you choose axioms such that it is true. Ironically, math cannot be correct or incorrect any more than a set of rules for a roleplaying game can be correct or incorrect.
>Math will never -not- exist. It -has- to exist, since it goes along with existence. An author can't even remove it from their fiction. It is absolutely inseparable. >It, math, is perhaps the most empirical thing in existence. It is the "shape" existence takes. There will never -not- be hypothetical quantification to something. >Yes, even a nothing is a something, and a zero is a one.
Mathematics is simply the expression of mereology. "It" does not shape existence, it is not the "shape" of existence, it is an expression of its objectivity.
Can't. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anything we don't know is everything else out there. You're assuming everything else out there doesn't exist, which is a flat out absurd.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Can't. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Can you pinpoint it specifically, locally, zoom in on it, extract it? No. Because its a virtual entity, not an actual real one. And yet you could not empirically predict the behavior of any thrown object without accounting for it.
Therefore science is not purely, entirely about real existing objects and causal forces, it never has, it doesn't pretend to be, and if you had any interaction with mathematicians or logicians in academic circles you would be aware of this.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, actually. You can, in a zero gravity environment, measure the velocity vectors of masses attracted to your center of gravity. By placing four masses at the vertices of a tetrahedron in space with your body at the center, we can pinpoint your center of gravity by observing the point at which all four velocity vectors intersect.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Kek you stupid c**t. I can already point toward your center of gravity, but I can't reach it, that's the point. Science requires the use of a virtual non-existent entity in order to predict the behavior of real existent ones.
2 months ago
Anonymous
So what if you can't reach it? I can't reach the sun, is the sun real? I can't reach the upper atmosphere, is air real? I can't reach the bottom of the ocean, is water real? Jesus christ you sound like a flat earther you're so uneducated about everything
2 months ago
Anonymous
You can reach the Sun or the upper atmosphere, these are both physical obects. There is nothing preventing your spatial coordinates from reaching theirs, you both have some.
Your center of gravity does not have spatial coordinates, despite being something you can roughly "vector" in and even point by finger, because it is not a real object.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Your center of gravity has spatial coordinates, I just showed you how to calculate them.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No it does not, you cannot isolate any chunk of any object that is "the center of gravity". The more you zoom in, the more your coordinates become wrong, to the point they become useless.
2 months ago
Anonymous
All physical measurements have finite precision. This isn't an argument for or against the existence of any phenomenon.
2 months ago
Anonymous
But the lack of precision is not indicative of the scale at which it operates, that's the fricking point.
2 months ago
Anonymous
What does its scale have to do with anything? We're discussing whether it exists, not how big it is.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>What does its scale have to do with anything? We're discussing whether it exists
Jesus Christ. Ok let's recap the thread for your benefit your fricking defect. > Reddit sperg anon claims that anything that could be conceptualize has to be conceptualize as a causal physical object. Why? No fricking clue, there's no argument provided. > Everything is a scientific process because everything involves interactive processes between physical objects and forces. All objects are scientific objects because they all involve some physical process. (Absolute moronation) > People point out that he is reducing the meaning of "scientific experience" to "experience" alone, and that science has never only been about physical processes or primarily geared toward the production of new technology. > Center of gravities are scientific "entities" absolutely required in order to determine the causality affecting objects under movement. They are however not physical objects. Their spatial coordinates is literally the entirety of their being as far as existence goes. I don't pretend they don't exist, but they don't exist the same way a rock hitting my foot does. Ontology is a bit more complex than this already. > Not only that but the reddit sperg anon claims that everything is an object of science by necessity. Everything has a scientific explanation, observability be damned.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Most of this is shit I never claimed, so I don't know why you're posting it here. Centers of gravity exist. You can show this by balancing a pen. Or any object.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Also yes, everything can be explained by science, in principle. In practice, there may be certain phenomena that are too far removed either in space or in time for us to ever be able to confirm or reject hypotheses about, such as events preceding the beginning of the universe, for example. That doesn't mean the pre-origins of the universe are un-knowable in principle, only that we may not be (ever) capable of building the tools and methods that would be needed to obtain information about them.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Another example would be the origin of language. The nature of verbal language ensures that physical evidence will be nearly non-existent, and it's unclear what, if any, experiments might determine whether a given hypothesis on the subject should be confirmed or rejected.
You are still expecting causality to make sense in a World where time has not even started to exist.
And you don't realize how childish and empty of meaning your claims are?
2 months ago
Anonymous
I haven't made any claims about causality. I specifically gave an example of a scenario where it may be impossible to discover the truth about a phenomenon - namely, before time (before the beginning of the universe). Are you reading my posts at all, or just assuming you already know my opinions? If so, why should I continue responding?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I haven't made any claims about causality
Yes you did.
[...] >qualia
is it just scientists inventing more problems for themselves? We know there's different wavelengths for elecrtomagnetic waves, and that they interact with chemicals differently (this is how we made photo and video cameras). Why can't it interact similarly in our retina too? No I will not read your book, Leonard, don't even try to invent even more problems. >but the way i perceive red might be different from-
Doesn't matter, as long as we both can agree when a color is red, or a shade of red, we see the colors simiarly, meaning the chemical process in our retina is similar enough (as it should be). The issue arises when you're colorblind and point at a "green for everyone else" apple and call it red, but that could be a malfunction of the retina or the rest of your brain that receives one chemical and mistakes it for another. Really, there's no need to complicate eyesight and color difference-ing(a thing we can recreate with chemicals in a camera) with your philosophical "but what if tho" wankery. And yes we can recreate different kinds of colorblindness using chemicals also. >but how do you trust the chemicals in your brain-
If what I see and feel isn't real, then I am as not real as all around me, ergo I and everything else is real, because it's easier to multiply by 1 than by -1 or by i/-i if the end result of being able to factor that out is the same.
>is it just scientists inventing more problems for themselves?
No. Your sense-data are processed in a specific way that is centralized and mediatized to you. We understand increasing parts of the logical work done on the data, we have no understanding whatsoever of the mechanism by which the field of vision is effectively created. At most we can draw inferences between aspects of our phenomenology and how the wetware is built, such as claiming that the "flatness" of the field of view results from the reproduction of the pattern of neural excitement of our eye's surface to the surface of V4, but we have no clue how neurons or neural assemblies can produce the "token" of color, so to speak.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No I didn't.
2 months ago
Anonymous
And I don't know why you're referring to my claims as childish. The un-knowability (currently) of the two examples I provided are well-documented.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Another example would be the origin of language. The nature of verbal language ensures that physical evidence will be nearly non-existent, and it's unclear what, if any, experiments might determine whether a given hypothesis on the subject should be confirmed or rejected.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I can't reach the bottom of the ocean, is water real?
Why are you so fricking stupid?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Says the guy who presented "reachability" as if it's a criterion for existence lmao
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Says the guy who presented "reachability" as if it's a criterion for existence lmao
Says the guy who think "nature is science".
That doesn't mean anything, you're just repeating things you think sound smart. If you disagree, explain or describe the specific shape you think existence takes, and describe what must not be true if your model is correct.
Science isn't magic because science the way we know it can only exist in an immutable universe.
This isn’t the case in 99.99% of settings out there.
Let’s take your average d&d setting like forgotten realms.
Gravity works exactly as in the real world, apples fall from trees they don’t float up. Yet, giants exist breaking the square cube law and it’s not magical because giants can walk in an anti-magic zone without issue. Hell, dragons can even fly even in anti-magic zones.
Why because the gods can just say frick you and your laws. You can’t have our understanding of science if all the rules can change at any time depending on how the gods feel.
The way magic works has also changed several times in the forgotten realms, why? Because the gods said frick you magic is different now.
I mean, isn't it a fairly common scientific idea at this point that there ARE specifically things which cannot be known because of the scale at which they happen, and causality breaks further down?
Yes, but according to morons all of that isn't science/physics due to its unknowability. I guess a crashed UFO isn't science. Borderline magic is just science we don't understand.
>Yes, but according to morons all of that isn't science/physics due to its unknowability
How can it be science if you cannot have knowledge about it?
It's something else if you somehow prove that whatever way it is HAS to be the way you theorize, mind you. Science isn't supposed to deal in apodictic statements.
>How can it be science if you cannot have knowledge about it?
Because scientists aren't stupid enough to think the future doesn't exist? That existence existed before we did? Yeah, scientific processes have been running before Earth was even forms.
>Because scientists aren't stupid enough to think the future doesn't exist?
Everyone can predict into the future up to a point, this isn't what's at stake, you should recognize this. Scientist cannot anymore predict in the future what will happen below the point of quantum observability than they can do in the present, that's the whole point.
>Yeah, scientific processes have been running before Earth was even forms.
This is moronic beyond belief. Its a physical process, not a scientific process, you stupid c**t.
>Its a physical process, not a scientific process, you stupid c**t. >what is physics
I seriously can't tell whether you're merely pretending to be moronic or not. I am baffled.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I am baffled.
Seemingly your natural state.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I really pity your brain, anon.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I would expect nothing else from a midwit like you. IQ communication gap and all.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Just know that you're the outlier (moron) in this most basic of simplicities.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, lets keep exchanging stupid one-sentence childish burns until we get this thread killed, please.
> "Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks create self-consciousness, let alone how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you somehow brazenly declare that seeing is believing!"
>how neural networks create self-consciousness
They don't, at least not the ones we have so far. They can pretend all they want, but the current method of neural network making creates a very complicated xerox copier for words, by design. Not something that can think, but something that can try to predict what the next input has to be. >how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception
The key here is in the fact we have two slightly different flat images. The difference gives us the third dimension (how close or far something is to us). See also: early "3D" movies that use the classic red/blue glasses and how the two sets of images that are slightly different (because they're shot on two different cameras sitting side by side)
Yes, I too have read about PPM in my first CogSci class, anon. >The key here is in the fact we have two slightly different flat images.
Yes, I too have read Pinkers, anon.
So what is your argument? I won't contest the neural network, that tech is too new, but for eyesight we know how it works. We can use what we know to fool the brain into thinking a flat image is 3d. If that's not considered "understanding", then what is?
>but for eyesight we know how it works.
No we don't, no one understand how qualia works. I'm not gonna argue about that however given that I believe this could be eventually explained away, and that cognitive sciences are possibly yet too young.
And I'll add to this that if any anons wishes to challenge their base materialism through serious academic work, one of the best way to do so is to take a dive into the wonderful clusterfrick that is color ontology. For this I would highly recommend The Red and The Real, by Leonard Cohen (no, not that one).
And I'll add to this that if any anons wishes to challenge their base materialism through serious academic work, one of the best way to do so is to take a dive into the wonderful clusterfrick that is color ontology. For this I would highly recommend The Red and The Real, by Leonard Cohen (no, not that one).
>qualia
is it just scientists inventing more problems for themselves? We know there's different wavelengths for elecrtomagnetic waves, and that they interact with chemicals differently (this is how we made photo and video cameras). Why can't it interact similarly in our retina too? No I will not read your book, Leonard, don't even try to invent even more problems. >but the way i perceive red might be different from-
Doesn't matter, as long as we both can agree when a color is red, or a shade of red, we see the colors simiarly, meaning the chemical process in our retina is similar enough (as it should be). The issue arises when you're colorblind and point at a "green for everyone else" apple and call it red, but that could be a malfunction of the retina or the rest of your brain that receives one chemical and mistakes it for another. Really, there's no need to complicate eyesight and color difference-ing(a thing we can recreate with chemicals in a camera) with your philosophical "but what if tho" wankery. And yes we can recreate different kinds of colorblindness using chemicals also. >but how do you trust the chemicals in your brain-
If what I see and feel isn't real, then I am as not real as all around me, ergo I and everything else is real, because it's easier to multiply by 1 than by -1 or by i/-i if the end result of being able to factor that out is the same.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Doesn't matter, as long as we both can agree when a color is red, or a shade of red, we see the colors simiarly, meaning the chemical process in our retina is similar enough (as it should be).
Except the whole reason people can go decades without ever realizing they're colorblind is because the names we give to colors and shades are arbitrary and our ability to verbally differentiate them is a result of education and not inherent understanding. If I'm color blind I will likely agree with everyone else when an apple is called "red" because my understanding of the color isn't actually based on what my retinas perceive, but instead on the general consensus that informed my understanding of what specific shades constitute "red" as a child.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>doesn't matter
Yes it does, you mongoloid. It has important implications to neurobio if the way I perceive red is different than the way you perceive red even though our cone cells/optical nerve/visual cortex respond to it in the same way. THAT would actually be fricking fascinating if that's the case.
Yes: Fae rules. Trying to understand magic via the scientific method will make it even more complicated and self contradicting. Because thats the fae rules.
>Is it even possible to keep science away from magic?
Depends on which category the work in question falls under. >nonfiction
Concerns true events, true studies, proven facts, real people, etc.
Science is the systematic study of the natural & physical world through observation & experiment; magic is a supernatural/unnatural force/source.
In our world, everything is a part of nature, so actual magic doesn't exist. Science is very easy to keep away from things that don't even exist. >fiction
Fiction concerns things that didn't happen, in whole or in part, but could plausibly happen. The answer to this is the same as the answer to nonfiction. >fantasy
Fantasy is the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible/improbable.
It is impossible for our world to have supernatural/unnatural things, but due to the vastness of how many things are improbable (ranging from outright disproven theories to hypotheticals with little to no plausibility, to something some schmuck just came up with in his head) you can have anything in fantasy.
Our minds can't comprehend senses it doesn't possess, our bodies can't utilize muscles that don't exist; we certainly can't describe things we have no frame of reference for, but that's because of the way our real, nonfictional world works. We can establish that in a work of fantasy, this power doesn't belong in that world or that force is superior to its nature, these things can be true to that work of fantasy.
It's very easy to keep science away from magic, but in the end, it's all about how well others are able to engage the hypothetical & their ability to separate fantasy from reality.
The people who look at a work of fantasy and say its magic is a science or "effectively a science" have a similar cognitive incapability as the people you ask "how would you feel if you had breakfast this morning" who answer that they didn't have breakfast.
If you're expecting a shitty one sentence definition that you can meticulously break down in a massive wall of text I'm not giving it to you. I'm here to shitpost, not read your thesis.
what the hell is this thread
there are multiple fictional universes where magic is drawn from things that are inherently illogical and a fool's errand to try and understand
According to the screenshot there being methods by which magic can be utilized inherently means there's a science to it. The screenshot is moronic, however, because when the repeatable results of an experiment require a degree of blind faith from the observer it becomes thaumaturgy, not science.
>nherently illogical and a fool's errand to try and understand
This isn't even fricking true in Lovecraft shit, eldritch knowledge may be damaging to the psyche, but it is absolutely something that can be "understood" and higher beings do treat the mind-bending mysticism as a genuine science. There's a whole story about a guy who Math'd so hard he could warp across the universe from his bedroom.
The OP's image is stupid and wrong. Science isn't a natural consequence of the laws or physics or metaphysics or whatever. It's a method of interpreting and trying to understand the universe.
So no, I don't think it's possible (and nor should you).
That said, you don't necessarily have to get actionable results from using the scientific method on magic. Things could be random based on some uninterpretable, meta-aware consciousness or something, I dunno.
Doesn't Knowing already create Unknowing in turn? All answers lead to more questions. Magic is simply the hazy glow just (currently and at any time) outside the ever-expanding borders of knowledge.
I feel like all of these discussions arise from trying to create pre-modern fantasy settings then applying modern ideas to them
Magic isn’t science because its people have not invented science yet. They don’t apply the scientific method to their knowledge - probably they get all of their knowledge from the “ancients” and if those authorities never said anything about it no one ever learns it. Rarely someone comes up with something novel and then must successfully pass off his knowledge as having been written by those authorities all along. They have no concept of mass production or even technology advancing (besides thread spinning lmao)
I see you stopped replying to my posts since you knew you were losing the argument, and figured no one would notice you're the same person. I'll accept your admission of defeat graciously.
Yeah, this thread has me in a nihilistic funk because it's slowly dawning on me just how midwit and confused these people actually are.
I've had all kinds of arguments on /tg/, and through them all I've at least thought that it just boiled down to a difference of opinion.
Now I see that the very worldview a majority of us have is so defunct and out of whack with reality that we may as well be living on different planets. There's no communication that can get through a barrier of someone being so moronic they misunderstand basic principles about how the fricking universe works.
Insanity.
I didn't even describe my worldview, dilweed.
You could have just as easily assumed I was talking about your enemies in your petty little argument. Hell, I don't even know what your own position is because you're anonymous and I don't know which posts are yours.
moron.
OP is a complete autist. Science is the study of the laws of reality. It's the attempt to explain and catalogue how things function. For example, fires are heat + fuel + oxygen. This is repeatable, demonstrable, and follows a scientific understanding of fire.
What wouldn't be science is clicking your fingers and magically creating a fireball in the palm of your hands, which has no fuel, heat from nowhere, and often doesn't even need oxygen to appear and sustain itself. It goes AGAINST science. It goes AGAINST the laws of reality. It is the result of magic, which doesn't follow anything that science would be able to study.
>fires are heat + fuel + oxygen
A process. >clicking your fingers and magically creating a fireball in the palm of your hands
Sounds like a process. >which has no fuel, heat from nowhere, and often doesn't even need oxygen to appear and sustain itself
The fire is still fire, and came from somewhere, as everything does. I don’t care if it’s higher dimensional phenomena we cannot perceive. That’s still something. >It goes AGAINST science >It goes AGAINST the laws of reality
Nope. It works. A fireball was produced. If it’s wibbly-wobbly “I don’t know how I did it” it’s still a hidden, nuanced “science” nonetheless. A crashed UFO isn’t not (alien) science just because it makes no sense and defies our *understanding* of physics. Reality works with itself. What is unnatural or supernatural is merely relative. The magic of the past is the science of the future. >which doesn't follow anything that science would be able to study.
Just because we can’t poke it doesn’t mean it’s not there. A black box. Magic is a black box. Sometimes poking a black box inevitably puts the poker inside of it. Sometimes magic isn’t magic to the magician. Magic is an angle. The elves in Lord of the Rings don’t even believe in (elven) magic. They’re too used to it. It doesn’t “defy” anything, not to them. Crazy how Tolkien knew this but modern fantasists do not. The IQ has dropped. Or you’re at the very least skewed in understanding basic simplicities.
>A process.
Putting a ladybird on top of a pile of sand and then singing "wheels on the bus" at it is also a process. It doesn't mean the laws of reality allow it to make fire.
Honestly, I didn't read the rest because your first line shows you don't get it.
That fire still came from somewhere, since it’s fire. When a wizard conjures fire, it’s fire, ergo physics. Fire hot.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>That fire still came from somewhere, since it’s fire
Nope, you're being a moron still and thinking it has to have been because of a scientific explanation. It's magic, the fire came from nowhere.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>It's magic, the fire came from nowhere.
Then it wouldn’t happen at all. Then there would be no fire. Fire is automatically subjected to physics. You lose.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Then it wouldn’t happen at all.
Yes, it would. That's why it's magic. Do you get it now?
2 months ago
Anonymous
You don’t appear to get the ill-logic of your thinking processes.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No, you just don't seem to understand what magic is.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Magic is entirely psychological, anon. What is magic to one is not magic to another, and nothing can truly defy physics if it exists. What is “unnatural” or “supernatural” is merely based on familiarity. It’s all relative.
You need to grow up. If you can’t be smarter, be wiser.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No, we've just been over what magic is. Magic is
>Then it wouldn’t happen at all.
Yes, it would. That's why it's magic. Do you get it now?
Do you get it now?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Nope. Magic is 100% psychological. You need to first consider something magic, in order for it to be magic. Because again, what is magic to one is not magic to another. It’s that simple. But go ahead and keep implying the likes of Tolkien and Clarke are idiots, it will make you look really good, surely.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Stop being a dishonest c**t. You just acknowledged if something can't happen and yet still does, then it must be magic. Stop trying to distract with other bullshit.
>It's magic, the fire came from nowhere.
Then it wouldn’t happen at all. Then there would be no fire. Fire is automatically subjected to physics. You lose.
>Then it wouldn’t happen at all.
Yes, it would. That's why it's magic. Do you get it now?
2 months ago
Anonymous
You fail at reading comprehension lmao
The human race is fricked with people like yourself diluting basic thinking
We've done this countless times already, OP. You were wrong then as well. Let's do the simple thought experiment that crippled you last time, again: >aliens show up on Earth >they know absolutely everything about how reality works >in this thought experiment, there is nothing hidden from them, they literally know it all >they see a mage cast a fireball >smugly think it's one of many possible advanced scientific explanations >mage explains some illogical, impossible method he used >study the mage >not a single explanation of reality actually fits what the mage did (in fact, many go against it) >what the mage did is not possible by reality's standards, which the aliens know completely >it is magic
Again, you can try to tie yourself up in knots over this, but this is what magic is.
The answer is no.
Spurt Vonnegay
That's just wrong. Even just staying within the original post 'Anything that goes along with Causality is science'
So just make Magic non causal. We generally don't do that because frankly its frustrating for the player, but someone trying to engineer or science magic is frustrating for me so if they do that, suddenly their 'mage' develops a 'Daemon Loci' as their magic develops sentenience. It's still their magic, it often does what they want, but all the rules for magic are 'Roleplay b***h' and its entirely appropriate for the gm to say ''CAUSE ITS MAGIC b***h' when the player complains.
>That’s just wrong
No it’s not.
Let me spell it out for you
>Causality
See we make magic per the rules very causal so low iq homosexuals like you can follow along. All we have to do to return magic from 'casual' to 'acausal'.
But you may say, you can't do that.
>But you can
It's already a universe with miracles. Having Acausal miracles ain't no thing because frankly the causal miracles (that are rather expressly just there so drooling low IQ morons like you can play) are already the exception. Miracles by definition are acausal, they can't be casual because like you said they wouldn't be miracles but a feature of causal reality.
>what leads up to it
Look more Low IQ Causal thinking. If Miracles are miraculous, Magic having sapience is no stranger then Gods existing (which I guess you could argue as aspects, domains or rules of nature having sapience). By definition of the Materialists, life had to start up out of no where in a purely innorganic universe. Magic did that and probably did Sapiernce as a lay up hey babe, hand on the locker kind of thing.
You can think of the game rules as 'Man magic' because its made for autist men. It works good at that but it's not the only magic, there is also woman magic where magic is a woman you have to please. And just like in real life you don't understand that.
Let me ask you this, dipshit. Does God view His miracles as miraculous? Does God view Himself as a God? Does the human consider themselves a god to an ant? Is dropping a single jellybean on an anthill a miracle?
Magic and miracles are entirely relative, and it’s the same with the gods. “That’s not a god, THIS is a God!” “Your god is a demon, mine is a true God!” Etc.
It’s just a no brainer.
Yea, if you make it deeply spiritual and rooted in symbol
Yknow, like irl occult practices
Does doing the same thing in the same way yield the same result? If yes, then it's science.
>Yea, if you make it deeply spiritual and rooted in symbol
Even this can still be scientific if it's still demonstrably repeatable.
>Even this can still be scientific if it's still demonstrably repeatable
Then make it non-repeatable and unreliable.
>"but that still would mean that we just haven't studied it hard enough!"
Outer Black evils don't care about your pathetic truth-seeking attempts at being a gnostic know-it-all. Trve magic is an endeavor of fools and madmen who toil surreptitiously in rituals to beckon the Moon. End of story!
On a more serious note, yes, it's entirely possible to make magic work like that in your setting. OP threadshot talks about defying nature, but it also can very well defy cognition/gnosis the same way you gotta breathe manually once you have taken notion of it.
Even a magic system that works off subconsciousness/Id would come pretty close to not being science-crunchable IMO.
>Magic is Aliens
Cool.
>Then make it unreliable
That doesnt help, i'll just broaden my sample size and bring out the confidence intervals
Read the rest of my post, friend!
You can have magic warp and bend and lense around attempts to study it consciously and studying something sub-consciously is, well, hardly studying is it?
>Then how do people learn it
You're making an assumption that magic is academically learn, which might not be the case.
It is common for magic to be an inherent gift or something that's bestowed from above.
>and why do people rely on it?
You're making an assumption that people would rely on it as a part of some sort of high-fantasy setting where magic is incorporated into the logistics and infrastructure and whatnot, or otherwise commodified.
Do people rely on capoeira or knowledge of cantonese? It can be a hobby for the weird and the degenerate and the odd. It could be a dangerous and unreliable tool for the desperate.
Oh! And to add to my post here and here
: a lot of lads here are making a wild assumption that they could consistently manifest magical phenomena while being of stable mental state to observe it and catalogue it, to which I reply: doing magic could very well put you in a heightened or feverish state of mind, which could be another barrier against proper scholastic endeavours.
It's not so easy taking notes when tripping balls with some metamorphic numen trickling down and dripping from your fingertips through the wet electricity of your nervous system.
No, even phenomena that are altered by observation can be understood.
Not if those phenomena are conscious of your attempts to study it and purposefully warp those behaviors to buck whatever predictive capability you may have. You could say that with enough sample size you would be able to predict even the decisions the phenomena would make to try and defy your findings, but now we're getting into absurdity. Could you predict every decision a human will ever make in its life? Maybe theoretically, but it's practically impossible. Even more so with a consciousness more advanced than a human.
> Then make it non-repeatable and unreliable.
Then how do people learn it and why do people rely on it?
>Then make it non-repeatable and unreliable.
That is antithetical to how all real world occultists thought of magic.
>That is antithetical to how all real world occultists thought of magic.
ok, and?
Not either of you, but there's a decision that has to be made and usually made on assumption about how much of magical practice adheres to how it happened in real life. Shadowrun, for example, would fall apart if all magic was just poorly described science. Meanwhile less technologically pronounced settings like D&D campaigns can get away with being more vague about how magic does or doesn't behave like an empirically pursuable academic discipline like chemistry or engineering.
It is not.
Writing down that you gotta pronounce this and that before summoning Exu Capa Preta while placating him with Y and X offering is - at best - guesswork that might not necessarily be repeatable and reliable. Maybe Exu Capa Preta met Y'golonac at Kadath last night at feels particularly shitty about the endeavour, so your mind is gonna be crucified against the inner walls of your cranium, or whatever.
and how would that work in a game?
And the moment you figure out how to make it have a repeatable outcome, you have symbolic and highly spiritual science that will inevitably divest itself of everything not necessary. You, know, like what happened to turn Alchemy into Chemistry.
There's no reason to think that magic obeys causality even if the outcome is repeatable.
If its repeatable, it's beholden to causality. But that is still dancing around the real question of this thread. How the frick will that work in a game? If you can't systematize it, its not a gameable. This is /Traditional Games/ not navel gazing contrarian morons who shit up the board instead of prepping their next session.
There's no reason to believe the magic fire you conjure is the same as the magic fire I conjure. What compounds are present in the smoke? What temperature does it burn at? What light does it give off? Could be an infinite number of variants. Uniform spells just cause magical effects within certain expected parameters but are not perfectly replicateable or scaleable, which is why 'big fireball' is a different spell than 'small fireball' (if we're going off Vancian magic.)
Even if the underlying metaphysics of your Produce Flame spell is completely different from my Conjure Fire spell, if it is repeatable by you then I can learn how it is repeatable and its science.
game?
This.
Nobody wants to play 'mother may I' to see when their spells actually start working again.
So because you dont like the way X works you choose to ignore it?
>So because you dont like the way X works
It doesn't work. That's the problem.
Holy shit what a moronic take. Alchemy was a spiritual movement, about uplifting the self via transformation, and the proto-chemical stuff was just a byproduct.
Alchemy was simultaneously spiritual as well as material, you dolt. It was not a fricking byproduct, they went along hand-in-hand, like peanut butter and jam. “If we can transmute materials, why not the human spirit?”.
The first alchemical texts were written in code to prevent accusations of heresy. All that shit about the tincture of the Moon (silver colloid) and the essence of copper? That was code for spiritual concepts and it was just a coincidence that it worked. Now admittedly BECAUSE it got written down and became reproducible, it ended up being a technological application of proto-chemistry, but at no point was there an attempt to systemize the knowledge of physical reactions - it was all code and allegory.
>but at no point was there an attempt to systemize the knowledge of physical reactions
You appear to be insane. What arcane bullshit they chalked it up to does not actually matter. It was exactly that. Egyptian priests colouring their robes was a systemic practice they knew.
Holy shit, you're actually room temperature IQ. It absolutely fricking matters. Just because something is a systemic practice doesn't make it science. At BEST it can make it a technology, but I wouldn't even go that far. If you think you can put out candles by the sound of you clapping, you're not a scientist - you don't realize the principles at work there.
Anon, as I’ve said before, cavemen we’re going about the scientific method when they were fashioning wheels and starting campfires regardless of whether or not they acknowledged the process.
It’s all science, just shaven down over time.
>At BEST it can make it a technology, but I wouldn't even go that far
I hope you realize that a stick is a piece of technology
For a ttrpg? Only if it's incomprehensible to the GM and players.
>Fourth Reply
>First one that's explicitly talking about games.
>No one engages with it.
I love /tg/
So Mage the Ascension?
Trivially easily? Science is a philosophy of extracting approximate knowlege from empirical evidence. Math is not science because it isnt measured or modeled, it just is. Moral philosophy isnt a science because it is transends material empirical measurement. All magic needs to do is follow its own internally consistent laws like math or not be beholden to empirical measurements. You can always create a science of magic, but the best you'll manage is to count the joules in a fireball. You'll never be able to MAKE a fireball, which would be the domain of engineering anyway
>All magic needs to do is follow its own internally consistent laws
Science.
Its only science if you can apply materialist empiricism to those laws. If visualizing a burning wheel always manifests a thunderbolt then you can measure that outcome sure, but you cant quantize a thought or construct an empirical model of that mechanism. It simply is.
>it's only science if you can apply it
Lol. Lmao even.
Science is a process. The simplest process.
—“Remember kids, the only difference between science and fricking around is writing it down.”
When someone asks how the erection works, they will be given a biological explanation on the processes of the penis, such as blood flow, sponginess, etc.
Science is, at its simplest, repeatability itself; and all the nuances that go along with it (not everything repeatable reproduces the same result, the replication crisis, etc).
Processes are truths.
Cavemen first learning how to make a campfire, were going about the scientific method regardless of whether they acknowledged it or not.
Technology is the application of scientific processes. The turning wheel, is technology. It is the symbol of progress.
Nature is a process. Nature runs.
Think interchangeably for once, as Einstein did, and you'll realize that nature is a scientist.
I'm sure you can make a science out of studying magic, but can you reduce it to equations to the same degree as with natural laws? It all depends on the system of magic at work.
For the example you gave of someone visualizing a burning wheel, it seems on par with someone saying the words 'burning wheel'.
There's not really some universal equation for how every persons' brain processes the same words, nor will those words occur at the exact same volume or frequency.
And yet people don't think of speech as magic or unscientific simply because there's no math problem for knowing what words will come out of someone's mouth in advance.
Scientists do still make an effort to study human brain activity in regards to certain tasks.
>people don't think of speech as magic
You mean other than all real world beliefs and fictional worlds where written or spoken words have power? Cultures where wizards sing their spells or speaking ill will cause bad things to happen.
>unscientific simply because there's no math problem
But language does come down to forumulas. If you don't use the correct syntax, gender, etc. the sentence won't work. There's even whole philosophies and sciences dedicated to language and how it works.
>people don't think of speech as magic
>You mean other than all real world beliefs and fictional worlds where written or spoken words have power? Cultures where wizards sing their spells or speaking ill will cause bad things to happen.
You're confusing "think of speech as magic" with "magic being performed through speech".
Noone thinks of speech as magic, as the anon says. If there was some sort of society or culture where speech would be considered to be inherently occult and magical, with only written and other nonverbal communication to be permitted aside from priests/witches/whatever, then yeah those kinda peoples would deem "speech of magic".
So your comparison is not entirely apt, I am afraid.
>But language does come down to forumulas
It is formulaic but far from logical the way math problem is. There can be vast information density disparity between various languages aside from many, many other differences.
>No one thinks of speech as magic
Other than cultures where certain words are considered to have power on their own.
>It is formulaic but far from logical the way math problem is. There can be vast information density disparity between various languages aside from many, many other differences.
Why do you keep bringing up math? Is it not science to you if it's not math?
>Other than cultures where certain words are considered to have power on their own.
Well, speech is not inherently magic to them regardless, it's some words and phrases that are. There is a difference, the taboo only applies to the latter. Yet the entire concept of "speech" is not magical on its own, which is what I am arguing about.
>Why do you keep bringing up math? Is it not science to you if it's not math?
Sorry for the confusion, I am not the anon you were replying to initially. Merely accentuating that human language(s) are very, very FAR from being optimized. So while some formulaics are applied, the language being formed is not exactly a 'scientific' process.
> If you don't use the correct syntax, gender, etc. the sentence won't work.
Sin tints wurk gud
Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It planely marques fore my revue
Miss steaks I kin knot sea
Doesn't depend on any such thing. The answer is yes.
Equations just show the relationships and patterns. For example, binding a spirit can have a logarithmic energy demand, being very hard at first but easier as time goes on. Likewise, the difficulty of a fireball spell could be arithmatic with velocity but expodential with initial distance.
>I'm sure you can make a science out of studying magic, but can you reduce it to equations to the same degree as with natural laws?
>he doesn't know.
>One True Magic III
>One
>Three
Fricking hell
No its not moron. Doing something and seeing if it works isnt science, just experimentation. Trial and error are not science. Processes are truths? Thats not science, its baking. Its only science when the philosophy of science is applied, which is an empirical study of the natural world.
Science is not knowlege. You're born knowing what the colour red looks like, theres no science in that. Its not the laws of the universe. Science doesnt touch math or philosophy because science fundamentally does not ask why, simply what can be observed to be. Occam's razor is so dangerous because its foundational to science and is neither a scientific principle nor a philosophical argument, just a matter of opinion.
Nature is not a scientist because it has no fricking concept of empiricism. Most frickers with "scientist" in their job title arent even scientists, they're engineers at best. Science is not "any" process. Its not even really any process. Its a philosophy from which one very specific and limited process emerges, and only when applied within that philosophical context
>Science doesnt touch math or philosophy
.........
nta but quoting that anon out of context with a peepo image is even lower than saying "your a gay"
>peepo
Trial and error is science, actually.
No its not moron.
This is it, this is what true midwittery looks like
>Its only science when the philosophy of science is applied
>Doesn't describe what this philosophy is.
The philosophy of science is the family of questions regarding the limits and implications of science. It spans many different views and schools of thought. There isn't one 'philosophy' that can be 'applied'.
Perhaps you mean logical positivism, which is the school of thought that posits only phenomena that affect the physical world and are therefore at least in theory measurable fall in the category of knowledge. That is what people tend to mean when they complain about sciencism.
But in your whole post the only thing coming close to describing what your grievance is is this;
>science fundamentally does not ask why
Which is not true for ANY scientific school of thought.
You're trying to invoke a sense of broader worldview, as if there's a more complete perspective on knowledge and empiricism that shows anon's science is just a small and limited part. But you can't actually articulate what this broader view is. You're just really insistent that it exists.
The truth is that science IS a very broad concept. And fantasy magic, which usually can actually affect the world around it, CAN be studied scientifically. Because simply writing down what is observed is all you need to do science.
If you're not an obstinate scientism moron warping "science" to mean "things that are known" regardless of how they're learned and how applicable it is, no.
If you're using the actual definition of science that makes it a clear subset of knowledge with clear requirements that it's possible for something to exist while failing to meet, then trivially.
Just make a horrible quagmire of a break in empiricism or determinism. Doesn't even need to be a TRUE break in it, merely beyond the available tools of measurement.
>The simplest process.
Actually read the fricking books, Philosophy of Science revolves around this not being the case.
>Science is, at its simplest, repeatability itself
No, its simplest form is applied empiricism, which requires empiricism to be useful.
>Cavemen first learning how to make a campfire, were going about the scientific method regardless of whether they acknowledged it or not.
Wrong, the scientific method is only useful because of much more specific considerations raising it above trial and error.
No, the occult mysteries are pretty heavily coached in dualistic and subjective terms that take a MASSIVE shit on the requirements for scientific study to be useful.
It's downstream from them, with philosophy defining the methodology and mathematics used to describe the results. As science cannot change them, a great many scientists are taught nothing of the deeper underpinnings in those areas because it doesn't matter to empirical study.
Sweet FRICK are you moronic. You are literally saying 0=1. And ignoring the reliance on quantization for mathematics to fit exactly.
Whether the described quantization is a real property of the object is in fact important, and this constantly turning up sensible is the cause of many a hot metaphysical take.
Rules preventing it were added mid-campaign, which often takes the form of interference with previously established rules.
You saying "No" or "Wrong" to basic scientific fact doesn't make you look any brighter, or less dumb, than you already are, kid. Lmao.
Your moronation is just fueling the smart alecs ITT.
>If you're not an obstinate scientism moron warping "science" to mean "things that are known"
That's literally the definition of the word dating back to its Latin origins. Whatever "but that's not REAL science!" you want to come up with is just hipsterism.
>That's literally the definition of the word dating back to its Latin origins.
And the modern English word means something different, just as the Icelandic "all-thing" kept to a much narrower meaning of "thing" than the English cognate used in translation.
>The occult went hand-in-hand with scientific inquiry.
And then they divided because the occult and scientific methods of inquiry did not actually work together.
>This isn't an invalid statement.
Proving one number is equal to another is the chief example of disproof by contradiction in mathematics for a reason.
>And the modern English word means something different
Your rectal cavity is not a valid dictionary.
philosophy is the search of truth. Mostly done through speculation and logic.
The field of Natural Philosophy developed methods to confirm the "truths" of the natural world in an objective way.
So you don't have different schools of thought with their different ideas, you can go out in the field and test their ideas and see what is actually correct.
Thus the ideas go from philosophy to consolidated knowledge, in latin scientia.
It's not just a matter of changing definition. That is literally what science is, the accumulated knowledge of humanity and the methods to obtain it.
If magic could be observed and studied in a way that is consistent and objective, enough to make magic formulas, it would be a science.
Mad, cutting-edge science can be described as "occult", you realize.
>No, the occult mysteries are pretty heavily coached in dualistic and subjective terms that take a MASSIVE shit on the requirements for scientific study to be useful.
The occult went hand-in-hand with scientific inquiry.
>You are literally saying 0=1
This isn't an invalid statement.
average texan: THAY"RE TEACHING DEMONOLOGY IN SCHOOLS! GET THE ROPES! GET THE GUNS! REVOLUTION 2 BEGINS NOW YEEHAW!
The diagram is somewhat misleading. Science isn't just Frick Around and Find Out, it's Frick Around, Find Out, and Tell Others. If you don't tell other people eventually, it's not science but just pointless navel gazing.
Of course, if you're going to tell others and don't want to look like a total idiot when you do it, you're going to try to be careful with how you do your fricking around, finding out, and telling others.
>Tell Others
So they can willingly misinterpret it? So they can project their "science" even harder? Frick off.
If I tell others about the whole racial IQ thing I will lose my job!
The scientific consensus will always be infected with morons.
you're talking about rigor, which isn't so much science as it is bookkeeping.
it's still important since anything worth remembering is worth writing down, but the core of science remains "frick around and find out"
literary, maybe, but in games, especially ones where magic is a thing players can use, it is inevitable for a logic of magic to form, and from there for it to become a form of science.
or to put it another way, anything that can be fricked with can be found out about.
>you're talking about rigor, which isn't so much science as it is bookkeeping.
Telling others isn't just bookkeeping. It means that scientific knowledge tends to be cumulative and corrected towards a true and effective description of the world, at least at a societal level. That's a critical aspect; it implies that science ends up building a reasonably accurate model of reality.
Without it you can just have a bunch of loners doing lolrandumb shit in secret until it kills them, and it will probably be the same set of stupid blunders that kills each of them. At least with science, you get whole new exciting ways to become unliving!
what does think interchangeably mean? which two or more things are you interchangeing?
Einstein once said that while Beethoven constructed his music, Mozart's ''was so pure that it seemed to have been ever-present in the universe, waiting to be discovered by the master." Einstein believed much the same of physics, that beyond observations and theory lay the music of the spheres, waiting for all time.
In the end, we're just repurposing ever-present processes into other processes. Practical empiricism. That's what technology is: the application of scientific information, or processes. The universe is as much a "machine" as it is a concert. It runs. It's music. It's -the- orchestra.
Why should I care about how music seemed to Einstein? It's great that he felt that way, but did he have any evidence that might convince anyone at all?
Did you read the rest of the post?
The rest of your post makes no mention of anything relating to my questions. Either respond to what I asked or stop posting.
Okay, dolt.
I accept your concession.
>In the end, we're just repurposing ever-present processes into other processes. Practical empiricism.
I mean, if you decide to purposefully ignore the fact that Science is primarily about knowledge and not material applications, sure.
>Science is primarily about knowledge and not material applications, sure.
But that's wrong, when technology is the material application of science.
Science is not primarily about technology, never was. You are discounting the entirety of science's logical development. 99% of Science is about definitions and conceptualization, and only a part of that applies to material concepts.
>Science is not primarily about technology, never was.
Why do you keep saying moronic shit?
> Knowledge has always only been about getting material result right there right now. There never was any foundational research at any time. Logic, mereology, ontology, all that was aimed at getting you your new IPhone.
Kek I'm always amazed at how many fricking morons I rub shoulders with on this site.
>when technology is the material application of science.
What is the technological application of political sciences conceived as the architectonic of all sciences?
>What is the technological application of political sciences
Media power and psychological cancer mostly
Sure, but that coin has more than two faces, that's the thing.
What do you mean, sure? It wasn't a yes or no question. Answer it.
Idiot.
Scientific inquiry (the scientific method) and scientific application (technology) are two sides of the same coin.
This is a phenomenally moronic post.
Isn't /tg/ supposed to be one of the nerdier boards? How the frick do you morons not understand that if something exists there is cause-and-effect logic to its existence, even in fiction?
isn't wrong and it's gross and even disgusting how argumentatively, childishly ignorant the lot of you are.
Because he's factually wrong. That's not what science is.
That's literally the scientific method, and you're the sore (likely underage) loser in the argument.
>That's literally the scientific method
Sure, but the argument rests on a etymological fallacy which reduces the meaning of picrel to "experience" as a whole.
This whole thread is simply highly indicative of how poorly educated the average modern individual is, otherwise you would know that the historical alternative to something falling under the realm of causality is for it to fall under the realm of intentionality.
just because you can apply the scientific method to it does not make it a science.
also,
you assume magic has reliable cause and effect. If 2+2 equals 4, or [null_value] or fish or rutabaga sideways purple indigo 21 foxtrot delta, and it's not the result of failure to control variables, the effect really is entirely disjointed from the cause other than an effect is produced, then it cannot BE scienced upon, because science requires repeatability and falsifiability of hypothesis. You can't prove that 2+2 will never equal duck instead of fish, nor can you prove that it will ever equal fish again.
The relevant term here is "non-deterministic". Irreducible variance can pretty quickly send something far outside the domains of available scientific study.
>Isn't /tg/ supposed to be one of the nerdier boards?
Never underestimate just how dumb and uneducated the average under-30 poster is here.
>it's gross and even disgusting
femanon detected
This is just common sense, and it's buttblasting so many, lmao
It's because you're reducing the keystone of what sets our age apart from others to a moronic aphorism wildly inappropriately trying to give it the weight of prior ages.
Nature isn't science. We can use science to make predictions about nature, and to narrow down possible explanations or mechanisms underlying what we observe.
>Nature isn't science
Yes, that's what I said, and it's correct.
He is correct. You are moronic and likely Asian.
>and likely Asian
But I drive just fine?
bump
>Math is not science
Mathematics is absolutely a scientific field you dolt.
Okay smart guy, go measure math
>ooh 1+1 is always 2 i measured it
Yeah with math. You validated it with itself shithead, it simply cannot be anf will never need to be externally validated. You cant even tell me if math is created or discovered, get outta here with this 40iq "we measured it" bullshit. What's next? You used a randomized controlled trial to test lf you exist because you think? You took out a rationaliter and counted the logic particles emitted by expressing that this statement is false? Frickin autistic and im not talking socially underdeveloped, im talking wears a crash helmet to the park
>You cant even tell me if math is created or discovered
You are so stupid lmao.
Math is actually theoretical.
1s and 0s will exist regardless of an author's say, lmao. Even an absolute nothing (a zero) is a something (a one).
Numbers aren't real.
Quantification isn't real?
Correct. Abstract concepts aren't real, and numbers are abstract concepts. The clue is in the name. Abstract.
About as theoretical as existence itself, given that a hypothetical anything that exists at all will never not have hypothetical quantification to it.
This is the third time ive pinned you and you've resorted to this lazy low effort shitposting. And id just ignore it like the other two times but you should understand something first. You arent that good of a troll, you're actually quite bad at it. You might think you're at least passable since ive spent the time formulating real replies, but as i mentioned dodging your weak attempts is effortless for me because my brain is enormous. Similarly explaining extremely basic highschool philosophy to you is something i could do in my sleep. Its actually easier for me to dunk on you like this than it is to call you a gay, since that way id actually have to find a decent reaction image to go with it. Feel free to cope and seethe however you want about this, but my response will be just as overwhelming
Glad you agree with me.
it's the opposite. science is a branch of mathematics that deals with the observable universe
i.e. i can take -(e^i*pi) and tell you what number i get. that is math. it is not science. it has nothing to do with the real world.
>transends material empirical measurement
It's 'transcends', and it is certainly possible to determine how whatever brainwashing you've been subject to has created the arbitrary opinions you mistake for universal moral truth.
>You'll never be able to MAKE a fireball, which would be the domain of engineering anyway
So why bring it up, then?
Magic is science, and science is magic. You would know that if you studied magic, or studied the study of magic. Every new method mastered, new theory crafted, new mechanism conceptualized and tested brings with it a new and often stranger mystery, and the number of people who can even conceptualize the question being asked, let alone answer it, shrinks. As above, so below.
The tower falls on judgement day.
>The greatest mystery the universe offers is not life but size. Size encompasses life, and the Tower encompasses size. The child, who is most at home with wonder, says: Daddy, what is above the sky? And the father says: The darkness of space. The child: What is beyond space? The father: The galaxy. The child: Beyond the galaxy? The father: Another galaxy. The child: Beyond the other galaxies? The father: No one knows.
>You see? Size defeats us. For the fish, the lake in which he lives is the universe. What does the fish think when he is jerked up by the mouth through the silver limits of existence and into a new universe where the air drowns him and the light is blue madness? Where huge bipeds with no gills stuff it into a suffocating box and cover it with wet weeds to die?
>Or one might take the tip of the pencil and magnify it. One reaches the point where a stunning realization strikes home: The pencil tip is not solid; it is composed of atoms which whirl and revolve like a trillion demon planets. What seems solid to us is actually only a loose net held together by gravity. Viewed at their actual size, the distances between these atoms might become league, gulfs, aeons. The atoms themselves are composed of nuclei and revolving protons and electrons. One may step down further to subatomic particles. And then to what? Tachyons? Nothing? Of course not. Everything in the universe denies nothing; to suggest an ending is the one absurdity.
You've never studied magic
so, how's middle school treating you?
*hits bong*
Okay so, what if we made a tabletop system where martials and other physics-based classes ran on granular number crunching but spellcasting had an entirely parallel system of rules that ran exclusively on narrative?
>Is it even possible to keep science away from magic?
yes, you make magic governed by secretive sentient faeries who are HUGE FRICKING DICKS and change the rules whenever someone starts to understand what they do and how they do it
or straight up murder the guy
Something I see as a misconception that people have about magic is that 'Magic shouldn't be replicable and repeatable' along with 'you shouldn't be able to understand the forced behind magic'. This is basically antithetical to all branches of real world occultism, both western and eastern.
Those who practiced occultism and believed themselves to be magicians did so with enormous amounts of specific knowledge and believed what they did was a process one could learn then make use of again and again. It required constant learned specifics. The modern idea is born more out of fantasy novels, but even then fantasy novels do not for the most part act like that either. It seems to be primarily born out of media illiteracy and a lack of historical knowledge of occultism.
I think it's because people want to make magic even more mystical than it is by severing the historical progression from magic to science so they can each be their own thing. While in IRL the people figuring out mechanical astrophysics were doing so with incredibly spiritual and esoteric assumptions about what they were observing.
>Something I see as a misconception that people have about magic is that 'Magic shouldn't be replicable and repeatable' along with 'you shouldn't be able to understand the forced behind magic'
Never said that, was just providing a counter-argument to the OP saying that it's very much feasible.
There can be several reasons why it can be lucrative though, such as keeping your setting more mystique.
>This is basically antithetical to all branches of real world occultism, both western and eastern.
Is it? I admit I don't frequent /x/ that much but the mega trove there has some neat books that I use for inspo/RP material. Most those books aren't really revolving around trying to "game" the "occult system" so to speak IMO. A huge chunk of that kinda stuff deals with symbol and pleasing certain entities, so saying that the impetus was making it as replicable as possible is a bit questionable I think, considering the method at hand.
>It seems to be primarily born out of media illiteracy and a lack of historical knowledge of occultism.
No, it's born from morons who want to be homosexuals by dragging the existence of actual convenient magic in a fantasy world to an extreme that makes it loses its aesthetic/narrative/role
>we should start mass producing wands to make fireball-gatlings for soldiers!
>we should use portals to create infinite energy!
>we should be able to use pocket dimensions as grenades!
>introduce convenient magic into a fantasy world
>players try to use magic for their convenience
>"No! Not like that!"
>>"No! Not like that!"
exactly, not like that, don't metagame and stick to the character and to the tone of the game
If the tone of your game is shattered by wands of fireballs existing and being something that could be reliably created, then maybe you should just not include wands of fireballs?
having to design a magic system that preemptively addresses any and all sort of abuse or gotcha someone can think of is pointless, the GM can and should put arbitrary limites when they arise
fireball wands exist
they can be made
no, you can't start mass producing them
why?
the answer doesn't need to be known, now stick to the game
>having to actually design a setting that works with the tone I want is too hard!
Sounds like you're just a shit DM.
You're just too deaf or dumb to listen to reason.
You haven't given any reason.
You're running a high fantasy game and then suddenly getting pissy and changing the rules when your players actually use magic to their advantage.
You do realize that there are games other than D&D out there where magic is actually limited in the ways you want it to be?
>changing the rules
no rule was changed, no intention was altered, you weren't meant to use magic that way from the start, you simply didn't see that it wouldn't work until you approached the thing
Then why don't the rules say you can't use magic that way?
>no, you can't start mass producing them
>why?
Because you'd have to procure the equipment for mass producing them, then you'd have to get the raw materials for producing them, then you'd have to acquire land to construct a facility, then you'd have to construct the facility, then you'd have to convince the local lord that it's okay to construct the facility there, then you'd have to secure the materials you'd procured from thieves while it's being constructed, then you'd have to deal with foreign adversaries sabotaging your plant because they're nervous about a lord who can mass-produce wands of fireball, then you'd have to find skilled labor to actually run the damn wand factory once it's built, then you'd have to deal with securing a contract for the wand factory....
Really, all of this shit is its own adventure, but way more boring.
I think the real answer to 'why?' should be something like 'it ruins the tone of the game and turns it into something else' and 'if it were possible then people smarter than you would have already done it and there would be no marketshare for you to pick up.'
Sure, but if your players really insist on making this factory anyway, let them deal with red tape and theft and stonewalling while the BBEG finishes casting the grand global rape ritual.
Yeah, absolutely. The forces of good, evil, and neutrality will all want to frick with them for their own reason, the local lord will not appreciate the threat to the monopoly of violence the state enjoys, some frickwits on the assembly line will get the idea of striking, unionizing, and communism, an organization analogous to the Pinkertons will offer to help at increasingly extortionate rates, the thieves' guild will demand protection fees, rival fireball wand factories will poach the best staff, rival fireball wand producers will say the PC is a pedophile whose wands are made from the foreskins of elven babies, etc.
>Anons ITT make a Factorio TTRPG
/tg/ is pretty based I gotta say.
Nope, crafting a wand of fireball costs 5625 gp and 450. It takes 11 days, or 12 if you round up. That's it. If the fireball is assumed to be cast at minimum caster level of 5, that's 50 charges x 5d6 = 250d6 = 250 x 3.5 = 875 total average damage per wand.
An EL 3 encounter returns 900 gp. A single CR 3 monster is an EL 3 encounter (pretty self-evident, but you can verify this with the SRD encounter calculator). A centaur is CR 3 and has standard treasure, so we can use it as our "average monster". A centaur has 26 average HP. 875 / 26 = 33 if we round down. So one wand of fireball can kill about 33 centaurs on average, which is also 33 EL 3 encounters. 33 x 900 = 29,700 gp, which is 5.28 times the cost of crafting a wand of fireball. Even if our centaurs save against fireballs 50% of the time, we can still make a considerable profit. Thanks to the infinite renewable resource of wandering monsters, the amount of gold we can acquire per unit of time is only limited by the population of intelligent beings that can craft wands.
450 xp*, that is. Also I forgot to note : 1 EL 3 encounter generates 225 xp, so we will also be bringing in about 15 times as much xp per wand as they cost to craft.
I'll mass produce them then.
Or you could play a game like ACKS where you can in fact mass-produce wands of fireball. Yeah it takes like, 3 months per wand, but yeah, you could do it.
So can the other guy.
No, I'll behave as if my character were really in the world, and making rational decisions in their best interests. Anything else would be bad roleplaying.
Well yeah. There's no reason you wouldn't be able to do any of those things with those magical items / spells.
It's probably because, had all those rituals worked back then, they certainly don't work *now*, which brings up several eerie, even alien implications,
So who or what is the on/off switch? 'The Magic Goes Away' is a frustrating trope.
Mysticism (theurgical rituals, shamanism, gnostic mysteries, etc) is a personal journey to esotericists. Closer to psychology, or a soft science.
What is magic to one is also not magic to another. Subjection and semantics matter.
>It required constant learned specifics
To invoke some force, usually a spirit or a God. At which point there was never a gaureented outcome
Easily. When you're writing a book or something.
Granted, a lot of readers hate "it jus werks" magic. Handled poorly, it can rob a story or any tension when poorly defined magic can just solve whatever complication presents itself in a scene.
For a tabletop game with a party of players, not so much. There are workarounds like random effect tables or saves like in Shadowrun that make things feel a little less precise, but it's a game at the end of the day. Rules are needed, and players don't want to feel like magic is handled in a mother may I fashion from the DM. They want agency.
There's nothing really wrong with magic as science if the author thinks of an appreciable reason for why magic doesn't solve everything, why everyone doesn't just uses magic, or why magicians don't rule the entire world. The best magic system needs clearly defined limits and drawbacks.
>why magic doesn't solve everything, why everyone doesn't just uses magic
Unless you're playing in some fantasy commie utopia you don't even need to address this - the answers are self-evident even beyond 'there'd be no fricking game if it did, dingus.'
>why magicians don't rule the entire world
Few ever really spell this out very well when they bother to address it. This is a question actually worth asking and answering.
>why magic doesn't solve everything, why everyone doesn't just uses magic, or why magicians don't rule the entire world
Replace "magic" with "science" and ask the same questions about real life.
Science does rule the world though, the current state of the world is only possible thanks to nukes, in a world where people can potentially turn into walking nukes those walking nukes would rule the world
Easy. Trying to solve it drives you mad. The more you try to perfectly measure the distance and effect of an arcane spell, the more it changes. It actively resists knowing. The most successful wizards shrug their shoulders and say "hey, it works, doesn't it?"
you can if you keep the rules of magic changing forever.
maybe tying them specifically to the collective subconscious so they stay definitionally inscrutable?
the Arthur C Clark quote:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
A quote exclusive used by brainlets
Magic is always arbitrarily powerful, to the point where it is a convenient construct.
All myth, magic, folklore, religion, etc, come across as arbitrary games of a kind.
Dungeons & Dragons is closer to science-fiction once you realize how robotic it is.
>Dungeons & Dragons is closer to science-fiction once you realize how robotic it is.
The material components for spells back when the game had flavour and SOVL were things like the ingredients for gunpowder for a fireball or scrying spells using shit that would look like a television.
The moronic ape doesn't know that science stems from (natural) philosophy lul
magic is the leftover stuff that didn't work when we started developing science.
Before that it was miracles obtained by praying to gods or demons and having them grant you wishes.
Or by special people who had power themselves the alter reality.
The existence of magic would imply that the nature of reality is fundamentally different from ours. That reality doesn't follow strict and predictable laws of physics and probability, but is molded by the will of special beings.
Of course if you treat magic as some special energy that can be used to alter reality then you turn it into a science. And for game mechanics it's hard to do it differently.
of course even that could be treated as a science.
Just instead of physics and engineering of magical energy it would be psychology of the gods.
Why is it important that magic and science be different? Hard mode: don't use the word "wonder."
Keeps the magic from being ripped apart into widespread technology. Not everyone wants to play Eberron-type settings.
Magitech is gay
Did magitech touch you as a child?
No, but also realize that we didn't have formalized science until recently and that people (craftsmen, engineers, philosophers of the natural) all kept their shit secret because the knowledge of the process gives them power.
This still happens to this day in certain crafts. Try to find the formulas for song writing, you can't, they exist, but are guarded by the guilds pumping out music.
You probably could turn magic to science, but considering it's power, it would likely be a bunch of secrets hidden by individual wizards, nations, and guilds and what information they DO put out would be either wrong or so inconsequential the masses can have it
>This still happens to this day in certain crafts.
Which one doesn't it happen in? The way knowledge is kept secret is just different.
It's mostly an argument over semantics.
A somewhat plausible definition of science would be
>The study of nature, how it works and how it can be manipulated.
So is magic a part of nature or something else? it depends on how you define nature.
If everything is nature than nature as a distinction becomes somewhat meaningless because what's NOT a part of nature?
It's kind of like the question "is a human an animal?", again it's semantics, strictly speaking yes but for most people animals exclude humans.
>What's a zoo?
>It's this place where animals are kept in enclosures and displayed to visitors
>Are there humans there?
>Duh, who do you think works in the zoo? the chimps?
>No no, I mean are there human enclosures?
>What the frick? no
>Why not?
I'd argue that if we can't apply the scientific method to something than it's "beyond science", at least until we reach new understandings that gives us something to work with.
So while magicians can "use" magic to make certain things happen relatively reliably it's extremely difficult to impossible to quantify and research magic itself for whatever reason.
Kind of like with consciousness, we all agree it exists but what it really is, where it comes from, why and how are impossible to answer given our current understanding.
So in a sense consciousness is "beyond" science, not because it's necessarily above the idea of causality or it literally lacks all logic but because excluding certain utterly untestable hypotheses we don't even have the tools to begin working on that question.
>"I draw the magical symbol on the portal to open the gateway."
>It doesn't work
Sciencegays BTFO'd, science destroyed. Cause and effect undone in 3 simple words. The entire field of physics obliterated as if by an atom bomb. 910 scientists agree this shit just doesn't make any sense! Evil cultist states in The Sun that hypergeometry is the only topic that should be taught in school. Oppenheimer movie sequel cancelled.
That just means it's curiously conditional or considerate in some way, moron. Intelligent even. What if magic is like a living thing?
Good luck creating an exception for every single statement you'll make about this magical phenomenon. In the end the amount of literature written on my magical gateway will be so extensive that no human being could ever comprehend all of it at once, or even learn it all in a single lifetime. It'll snake on, forever, endlessly, throughout all time. The universe will end long before it is done being categorised.
There is always a cause. You're basically just saying magic is a gap in information. Which is fair.
Yeah and the cause is that Magic the semi-sapient force decided that nah, doesn't feel like it. No portals until it feels better. No, it won't tell you when it'll feel good.
Okay, but what lead up to magic becoming a semi-sapient, practically-living thing? Everything starts from something, somewhere. Life on this planet didn’t just appear out of nowhere.
That doesn't matter. The point is, the proper way to do mysterious magic is to have it be occult in the literal sense of the word, where the principles are obscured from you and can never be known. Thus it can't ever be a science, because it would lack internal consistency. Today a fireball requires a pound of bat guano and some oil; the next day it's the laughter of a child and for a cat to try to mispronounce the word "autodidact," and the next four days it just won't work.
That just leads me back to
which is precisely the point. Magic is a proxy. A placeholder. “Magic”.
In a world of science, where everything is deconstructed/reconstructed, you eventually realize that magic IS “magic”. It’s applied wonder, mystery, horror, heresy, etc.
You can’t really hard define magic when it’s different for everyone. Relative. Subjective. Magic in a world of science survives as something to describe, not something to define. Science itself is descended from past magical, occult thought, see
Christ, even math was treated as magic for thousands of years. If math was magic, why not anything else?
Magic IS a gap, and it DOES “exist” the same way cold, darkness, or holes, exist. It’s not supposed to exist, to exist.
Sometimes just calling something magic is enough. In a post-apocalyptic setting, all you need is some mad dabbler scavenging at the old and dangerous relics of the past. Bam, you’ve got yourself a wizard.
Not at all. IF it can be understood at some point, if there exists somewhere some total ruleset of the way magic works, then it's not magic in the mysterious sense. It can be algorithmized eventually.
If, on the other hand, there will always exist SOME level of obfuscation, that can never be understood and reproduced, then no, it cannot be a science. You could be cheeky and do the thing in math where you say "Okay, and we're neglecting <property>" because the equation works fine without it, but with magic you should not be able to do that.
>Not at all. IF it can be understood at some point, if there exists somewhere some total ruleset of the way magic works, then it's not magic in the mysterious sense. It can be algorithmized eventually.
You’re basically claiming there’s nothing there, then, since if it exists, it can hypothetically be understood, even if only by higher dimensional aliens, not us.
If your idea of magic is “it cannot be understood EVER”, then, well, you’re sorely misguided. What is magic to us three-dimensional humans likely isn’t magic to fifth-dimensional beings.
Or are you suggesting that authors like Tolkien are idiots, and they’re wrong for calling the black machines of Mordor sorcery? You do you, man.
You seem to want magic to be some specific THING, which doesn’t really work.
appeared from nowhere
>That just means it's curiously conditional or considerate in some way, moron. Intelligent even. What if magic is like a living thing?
I cant seem to find it but doesnt Deedlit from RotLW cast magic by asking spirits to do things in some scenes?
Yes quite easily.
But if you abstract everything as science like a moron then no.
As long as you delete wizards it's easy.
Is it even possible for you to stop making this thread?
If someone held a knife to your dick and told you to stop ritualposting, would you still do it?
>a wizard and a fighter both follow the same steps. Wizard casts, fighter does not
Wow it's totally science!
Thank you for showing how the differences in the initial conditions result in a difference in outcome. I shall make a note of it in my grimoire.
Yeah, it totally is. We need only disassemble a sufficient number of fighters and wizards until we eliminate everything that isn't the difference that allows one to cast spells.
yeah
Why is /tg/ incapable of understanding science?
You mean science as in the art of writing down things you observe and trying to guess what might happen next based on your previous observations or do you mean The Science which is the art of parroting moronic propaganda which is self-evidently untrue but questioning the orthodoxy gets you lambasted by the faithful?
Magic needs to be mysterious and unknowable. When my players cast spells, I flip a coin behind the scenes. Heads, the power works. Tails, it fails, magic is not predictable after all.
>Magic needs to be mysterious and unknowable
Don't forget wondrous. "Woah it's like magic!"
Technically, yes, the scientific method can be applied to most systems of magic.
However, the average smug online tech bro attempting to do so would probably get himself blown up, or eaten by an outer entity, even using some of the safest systems.
Sort of but it ends up being this wild, unusable thing that you need to fight and destroy before it kills someone. The moment it's controllable and manageble it becomes something that can be studied and understood.
>Is it even possible to keep science away from magic?
Yes, make magic based on Law instead of Science. It's already the same basically.
> Spend your time deciphering big books for answers.
> 50% of the difficulty is figuring out the correct calendar date for specific acts.
> Can literally handwave anything away. Husband and Wife? Nope, not anymore! But you still gotta pay for your kid as if it was (but it basically isn't)! Now ain't THAT dark magic?
> Old legal theory is basically magic theory. Legal property was the reunion of 4 powers into a single person : Usus, Abusus, Fructus and Destructus (namely, right to use, right to use in a way that alter the nature, right to the fruit or child, and right to destroy).
> Even at the best of times things aren't 100% set in stone. (Seriously frick IP law I can never call a judgement right I've lost so many bets ffs)
Yes, by having the scientific method not be formalized and lionized in your campaign world. Nuclear power has existed for a frick of a long time but our ability to harness it is very recent because we only really started figuring out how the scientific process works a few hundred years ago. If your setting hasn't gone through an equivalent of the Enlightenment, and your magic is dangerous enough that poking at its attributes can lead to harsh and/or fatal accidents, then you're justified in saying that the rules of magic are not really well known, with what we DO know having only being discovered at a high price in blood.
Just keep in mind that your players will likely see an opportunity to innovate, so you'll need to be prepared to enforce consequences. Are they clever and lucky in their methods? Then if the dice say so, they can glean a few more answers. Are they stupid and/or unlucky? Well, hopefully you've been very clear what the potential consequences could be as you roll to determine their fate.
Nailed it
>screencapping a response to your own post
We don't do that here newhomosexual.
easy, have magic change the answers when you try to scientifically observe or record it.
If you want to be really spicy about it, you even make it retroactive so it actively gaslights the motherfrickers that try.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
so make it a scientifically understandable phenomenon?
if you consider "eh it just happens we don't really get it and there's no known, or for that matter because we can't measure it, knowable, cause" as "understanding" something, then sure. I would just call that "repeatable."
another good example is "dark matter." The math doesn't line up for the prosaic explanation, so we imagined a hypothetical substance we have no evidence for other than the mismatched math, and gave it a name, that way the discrepancy feels more "sciencey." It's not an answer, it's just a nice way to pretend you have one so you don't have to admit ignorance. Repeatable, but not actually understood.
string theory is another good example, it's technically an explanation, but it's simply by no definition empirical. If it can't be tested, it's by definition unscientific, that's the same reason scientists won't accept something like "God made it then fricked off forever" as a possible theory, there's no way to test it. The only difference between attributing it to string theory or your chosen flavor of god is using jargon and a bunch of math to gussy it up. Just like uncertainty and dark matter, effects of a possible String ToE are repeatable, even describable, we call them the Fundamental Forces, but not actually understood, or understandable.
We get so far, and then we hit these roadblocks where despite holding up to that point, the models completely break down, almost like we've hit something that refuses to be modeled properly. hic sunt dracones.
HARD disagree.
This is sophist semantic bullshit, the autism of "Some words mean EVERYTHING, some words mean NOTHING so long as I can make an argument."
That shit may impress some fat c**t in your high school debate club, but it's just empty dweebery in the rest of the world.
>Unnatural cannot exist. Nothing is unnatural because everything sprung forth from the cause and effect of nature, so even a concrete masturbation chamber is natural because human instinct lead to making it!
>Supernatural cannot exist, because everything has a causal reason for existing and supernatural events cannot be causal, therefore humanity invented the word for no reason because we're moronic, apparently.
I don't know if it's just one dedicated autist pushing this stuff here, or if there's a cadre of you. Stop sniffing your own farts. Words exist for a reason, they have meanings, no amount of sophist semantic juggling can obviate that and render the universe down into your self-satisfied smug sterility.
For example: You're a gay. You can sit there and argue about how everyone is technically a gay and the term is meaningless, or how nobody is a gay and the term is meaningless, you can apply the concept of homosexualry to everything or nothing but it's all just empty whining and you're still a gay.
Everything that exists is natural, sorry. There is no experiment you can devise to distinguish between a carbon atom that's part of a plant and a carbon atom that's part of a building.
If you weren't a moron you would understand that my argument isn't against that logic, but the utility of it. It means nothing. It's empty sophistry. It's quibbling about definition and vocabulary as if it's supposed to make a point about reality rather than just being self-masturbatory hot air.
What is there to gain or add to the discourse with that concept? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Let me ask you a question: If instead of using the terms natural or unnatural, I used the terms natural and shiskenagoon, where shiskenagoon's definition is "That which exists without the contribution of a sapient being.", would that satiate you?
Perhaps. But you know what? That's generally how people already mean things when they use those fricking words! You just think being purposefully obtuse and deliberately meddling with semantics is wisdom, when it's actually the opposite. You ACTUALLY think being so dumb that you either can't or won't comprehend context is a legitimate intellectual exercise. Frankly, it's pathetic.
You're just being an obnoxious twat and confusing that with some kind of intellectual flexing.
Just frick off with it. Your arguments have no purpose other than self fellatio for some arcane purpose only you can understand.
Of course it means something. It means there is no such thing as unnatural objects, beings, or substances. Re-read my post if you're still having trouble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
You're literally spinning your wheels on something that is almost textbook sophistry.
That's why I have a problem with your shitty argument. It's not that I can't understand it, it's just that I think making those arguments in the first place inherently makes you a fricking douchebag.
Not a fallacy, actually. Just an accurate description of reality.
It literally is a fallacy, lol. That's why I even gave you a link to the exact crap you're doing so that you couldn't weasel out of it.
If you care so much about "accurately describing reality", then you'll just have to cope with it or be a hypocrite.
No, not a fallacy. Your link is simply wrong.
you;re asking the wrong board
>>>/x/
Yes, but it's not helpful for most TTRPGs.
Science is the study of anything so even analyzed magic is just extra dimensional science
fictional worlds goverened by their own natural laws still need nerds to study and observe its phenomenon.
wizardry are just scientists in fictional world were shit like "aether" is a legit force of nature.
science
i.e.
empiricism seeks to understand observable phenomenon , if fireball is cast by quantum psychological effects in an epiphenominal universe or if its by sending psychic messages to the god of fire it doesnt matter as long as the process of casting is sound and valid and has the most measure of veracity.
>image
This isn't accurate. You can run out of Fireballs to cast in a given day, which magically resets at the next sunrise.
If you make magic completely unpredictable and random, both in causes and effects, I guess.
If it's possible to study magic, see patterns in it and figure out that if you consistently do X you get a result Y (light something on fire, turn someone into a frog, etc.), then it just becomes another scientific discipline.
Phenomena are not science and whoever wrote that is profoundly ignorant and low IQ. "Science" is applied empiricism. A chemical reaction isn't science, nor is a car engine, a microscope, or a gun. Those are technologies. Science is very specifically the act of performing a certain kind of empirical experiment, and if you are not doing an empirical experiment, you are not doing science.
Just blithely saying "durr well I understand it so it's science" is laughable. Mathematics works fine and it isn't a science, how exactly do you empirically test the Pythagorean theorem? How do you empirically test multiplying a positive by a negative number? You don't. Euclid's Postulates are all logical, but not empirical, you can't actually test their limits because they include things like "you can extend a line infinitely," which can't be practically tested. Presumably magic works the same way.
>A chemical reaction isn't science, nor is a car engine, a microscope, or a gun.
lol
Is this an AI trying to de-educate?
Stop responding to him please
>lol
>Is this an AI trying to de-educate?
He's not wrong? The science is about the object, not the object itself. A chemical reaction isn't science, but there is scientific knowledge about that reaction.
No, that's a factual statement. Those are technologies. Science is when you conduct an experiment to prove a hypothesis. A physical object is not science nor can it be, it can be tested or created with science maybe--but not all are. The misuse of this term is the cause of a great number of epistemological problems.
Science and technology are two sides of the same coin. That coin being information.
You are royally, painfully ignorant about this.
>A physical object is not science nor can it be
Tough shit. There is science to the way you're thinking, right now.
No they are not. Science is a method for testing information. Technology is an application of world-knowledge to bring about a result.
These are not "two sides of the same coin" if the coin is Information, one is something that you use to get coin, and the other is something that you buy with it. Information, or Truth, is a discrete entity that exists in either case and has interplay with the other two, but it is entirely possible to get information without employing the scientific method, and it is entirely possible to use technology without understanding it.
My point here is epistemological, which appears to confuse you, as you are the only one who is mad here lmao.
>Tough shit. There is science to the way you're thinking, right now.
Potentially you could use science to describe something about what I'm doing, but my thinking is not science, and I am not conducting a scientific experiment presently, so that's essentially a non-statement.
>No they are not.
Have a basic google search. It's common knowledge.
Stop being a pretentious, ignorant ass. Please. It will make you look less bad, or less cringe, in the long run.
>These are not "two sides of the same coin" if the coin is Information,
One is assessing information, the other is applying it.
I really am starting to believe you're some sort of de-educating psyop of some sort.
>but my thinking is not science
There aren't processes to the brain, is that it? Neurons don't exist? Electrical signals aren't a thing? Totally not real. Nope.
I strongly believe that stupidity is a core pillar, or tenant, of the human condition. You're certainly proof of that.
I can't take the time out of my Easter to actually back you up on this in detail but know that you're right and I know you're right.
The people you're talking with are completely asinine and don't know what the frick they're talking about.
Are you moronic?
>"Science" is applied empiricism
No thats just technology. Rolling is empirical. The wheel is technology.
>The wheel is technology.
No it's not. You;re stupid
Yes it is.
>he thinks math isn't empirical
Okay. Math is either too pure to be a science, or it's the purest science of all, you magnificent dolt.
"One plus one always equals two."
"Alright, show me your theory."
"What?"
"What?"
Math will never -not- exist. It -has- to exist, since it goes along with existence. An author can't even remove it from their fiction. It is absolutely inseparable.
It, math, is perhaps the most empirical thing in existence. It is the "shape" existence takes. There will never -not- be hypothetical quantification to something.
Yes, even a nothing is a something, and a zero is a one.
You've completely missed the point, which is that empiricism is not the first or the only way of ascertaining truth. Pure reason can produce correct answers. Mathematics is the most visible field of philosophy for this reason, but a field of -philosophy- it nevertheless is.
Empiricism is the junior partner of this relationship. Science, relatively recent, one method among many in philosophy's vast arsenal of methods. It is completely wrong to the point of being laughable to assert science as the parent category.
>Science, relatively recent
Definitely an AI.
No, that part is correct. The scientific method is pretty new. Before that, we had natural philosophy and a bunch of other shit.
Natural philosophy is the precursor to physics, which is the 'all-encompassing' science. But that's besides the point. Even cavemen had science. Acknowledgement of the scientific method does not matter.
Anon. If something exists, there will be hypothetical science to it, regardless if we reach it or not.
Everything is science. How much does this upset you? Where did science touch you?
No, what I said, and what YOU just said, is that everything is not science, because science is not a thing, it is a process that can be used to understand some things.
>Anon. If something exists, there will be hypothetical science to it,
But that science may be intentional instead of causal in its nature, i.e. it is phenomenological instead of empirical.
>Everything is science. How much does this upset you? Where did science touch you?
Why do you have to be such a c**t about this? This is an academic disagreement, one which is VERY widespread in philosophical circles, it does not warrant this type of engagement unless you feel threatened in your position.
>intentional instead of causal
What the frick does this even mean? That the universe is voluntarism? That's no different from Isaac Newton thinking the universe is too moronic to just exist on its own; "It HAS to be hand held by something!"
>phenomenological instead of empirical.
You don't know what empirical means. There is order even to chaos. Even God will have logic to Him.
>Why do you have to be such a c**t about this?
Because it's blatant common sense. If something exists, there will be an explanation to it. A background to its foreground. I don't care how weird it happens to be.
>That the universe is voluntarism?
Holy fricking Christ that this is how you interpreted this shows me the extent of your education to a point where I'm just not going to bother at all. Fricking read some philosophy man.
Also fricking beat those digits you motherfrickers.
>the ignorant underage is a 'get' gay to boot
No wonder youre so moronic
I like how you think all philosophy is valid, when it just isn't. "Science is just one path!", lol, okay. Science, or natural philosophy, is the most concrete form of philosophy, sorry. It won out for a reason. Existence has to first, y'know, EXIST, in order to exist.
>Anon. If something exists, there will be hypothetical science to it, regardless if we reach it or not.
>if there is a hypothetical thing it is a thing
lol no.
No, science is a specific process carried out by intelligent beings. It doesn't exist outside of a mind. The universe doesn't "run" on anything. The laws of physics aren't laws, that's just a colloquialism. They are a set of models that we use to describe what we experience, and make predictions. When our predictions are contradicted by reality, we update our models.
Math isn't exactly philosophy. What a bizarre statement.
Math is not and cannot be "correct" in the sense you mean. It is a set of rules, from which one can infer tautologies. "1+1=2" is true if you choose axioms such that it is true. "1+1=green" is true if you choose axioms such that it is true. Ironically, math cannot be correct or incorrect any more than a set of rules for a roleplaying game can be correct or incorrect.
>Math will never -not- exist. It -has- to exist, since it goes along with existence. An author can't even remove it from their fiction. It is absolutely inseparable.
>It, math, is perhaps the most empirical thing in existence. It is the "shape" existence takes. There will never -not- be hypothetical quantification to something.
>Yes, even a nothing is a something, and a zero is a one.
Mathematics is simply the expression of mereology. "It" does not shape existence, it is not the "shape" of existence, it is an expression of its objectivity.
It doesn't shape existence, it goes along with it. It's the "shape" existence takes.
If there is no quantification, then it doesn't exist at all.
>If there is no quantification, then it doesn't exist at all.
Quantify the location of my center of gravity please.
Can't. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anything we don't know is everything else out there. You're assuming everything else out there doesn't exist, which is a flat out absurd.
>Can't. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Can you pinpoint it specifically, locally, zoom in on it, extract it? No. Because its a virtual entity, not an actual real one. And yet you could not empirically predict the behavior of any thrown object without accounting for it.
Therefore science is not purely, entirely about real existing objects and causal forces, it never has, it doesn't pretend to be, and if you had any interaction with mathematicians or logicians in academic circles you would be aware of this.
Yes, actually. You can, in a zero gravity environment, measure the velocity vectors of masses attracted to your center of gravity. By placing four masses at the vertices of a tetrahedron in space with your body at the center, we can pinpoint your center of gravity by observing the point at which all four velocity vectors intersect.
Kek you stupid c**t. I can already point toward your center of gravity, but I can't reach it, that's the point. Science requires the use of a virtual non-existent entity in order to predict the behavior of real existent ones.
So what if you can't reach it? I can't reach the sun, is the sun real? I can't reach the upper atmosphere, is air real? I can't reach the bottom of the ocean, is water real? Jesus christ you sound like a flat earther you're so uneducated about everything
You can reach the Sun or the upper atmosphere, these are both physical obects. There is nothing preventing your spatial coordinates from reaching theirs, you both have some.
Your center of gravity does not have spatial coordinates, despite being something you can roughly "vector" in and even point by finger, because it is not a real object.
Your center of gravity has spatial coordinates, I just showed you how to calculate them.
No it does not, you cannot isolate any chunk of any object that is "the center of gravity". The more you zoom in, the more your coordinates become wrong, to the point they become useless.
All physical measurements have finite precision. This isn't an argument for or against the existence of any phenomenon.
But the lack of precision is not indicative of the scale at which it operates, that's the fricking point.
What does its scale have to do with anything? We're discussing whether it exists, not how big it is.
>What does its scale have to do with anything? We're discussing whether it exists
Jesus Christ. Ok let's recap the thread for your benefit your fricking defect.
> Reddit sperg anon claims that anything that could be conceptualize has to be conceptualize as a causal physical object. Why? No fricking clue, there's no argument provided.
> Everything is a scientific process because everything involves interactive processes between physical objects and forces. All objects are scientific objects because they all involve some physical process. (Absolute moronation)
> People point out that he is reducing the meaning of "scientific experience" to "experience" alone, and that science has never only been about physical processes or primarily geared toward the production of new technology.
> Center of gravities are scientific "entities" absolutely required in order to determine the causality affecting objects under movement. They are however not physical objects. Their spatial coordinates is literally the entirety of their being as far as existence goes. I don't pretend they don't exist, but they don't exist the same way a rock hitting my foot does. Ontology is a bit more complex than this already.
> Not only that but the reddit sperg anon claims that everything is an object of science by necessity. Everything has a scientific explanation, observability be damned.
Most of this is shit I never claimed, so I don't know why you're posting it here. Centers of gravity exist. You can show this by balancing a pen. Or any object.
Also yes, everything can be explained by science, in principle. In practice, there may be certain phenomena that are too far removed either in space or in time for us to ever be able to confirm or reject hypotheses about, such as events preceding the beginning of the universe, for example. That doesn't mean the pre-origins of the universe are un-knowable in principle, only that we may not be (ever) capable of building the tools and methods that would be needed to obtain information about them.
You are still expecting causality to make sense in a World where time has not even started to exist.
And you don't realize how childish and empty of meaning your claims are?
I haven't made any claims about causality. I specifically gave an example of a scenario where it may be impossible to discover the truth about a phenomenon - namely, before time (before the beginning of the universe). Are you reading my posts at all, or just assuming you already know my opinions? If so, why should I continue responding?
>I haven't made any claims about causality
Yes you did.
>is it just scientists inventing more problems for themselves?
No. Your sense-data are processed in a specific way that is centralized and mediatized to you. We understand increasing parts of the logical work done on the data, we have no understanding whatsoever of the mechanism by which the field of vision is effectively created. At most we can draw inferences between aspects of our phenomenology and how the wetware is built, such as claiming that the "flatness" of the field of view results from the reproduction of the pattern of neural excitement of our eye's surface to the surface of V4, but we have no clue how neurons or neural assemblies can produce the "token" of color, so to speak.
No I didn't.
And I don't know why you're referring to my claims as childish. The un-knowability (currently) of the two examples I provided are well-documented.
Another example would be the origin of language. The nature of verbal language ensures that physical evidence will be nearly non-existent, and it's unclear what, if any, experiments might determine whether a given hypothesis on the subject should be confirmed or rejected.
>I can't reach the bottom of the ocean, is water real?
Why are you so fricking stupid?
Says the guy who presented "reachability" as if it's a criterion for existence lmao
>Says the guy who presented "reachability" as if it's a criterion for existence lmao
Says the guy who think "nature is science".
That's not me, moron.
Yes it is. Don't fricking lie.
moron.
That doesn't mean anything, you're just repeating things you think sound smart. If you disagree, explain or describe the specific shape you think existence takes, and describe what must not be true if your model is correct.
You don't understand what "empirical" means.
Science isn't magic because science the way we know it can only exist in an immutable universe.
This isn’t the case in 99.99% of settings out there.
Let’s take your average d&d setting like forgotten realms.
Gravity works exactly as in the real world, apples fall from trees they don’t float up. Yet, giants exist breaking the square cube law and it’s not magical because giants can walk in an anti-magic zone without issue. Hell, dragons can even fly even in anti-magic zones.
Why because the gods can just say frick you and your laws. You can’t have our understanding of science if all the rules can change at any time depending on how the gods feel.
The way magic works has also changed several times in the forgotten realms, why? Because the gods said frick you magic is different now.
Seriously the frick is happening in this thread?
Even Ganker discussions are better than this.
"humans aren't flesh machines!"
"the brain is not an algorithm!"
"science isn't everything!"
The modern world has mind broke these people.
I mean, isn't it a fairly common scientific idea at this point that there ARE specifically things which cannot be known because of the scale at which they happen, and causality breaks further down?
Yes, but according to morons all of that isn't science/physics due to its unknowability. I guess a crashed UFO isn't science. Borderline magic is just science we don't understand.
>Yes, but according to morons all of that isn't science/physics due to its unknowability
How can it be science if you cannot have knowledge about it?
It's something else if you somehow prove that whatever way it is HAS to be the way you theorize, mind you. Science isn't supposed to deal in apodictic statements.
>How can it be science if you cannot have knowledge about it?
Because scientists aren't stupid enough to think the future doesn't exist? That existence existed before we did? Yeah, scientific processes have been running before Earth was even forms.
This level of thinking is apparently beyond you.
>forms
formed*
>Because scientists aren't stupid enough to think the future doesn't exist?
Everyone can predict into the future up to a point, this isn't what's at stake, you should recognize this. Scientist cannot anymore predict in the future what will happen below the point of quantum observability than they can do in the present, that's the whole point.
>Yeah, scientific processes have been running before Earth was even forms.
This is moronic beyond belief. Its a physical process, not a scientific process, you stupid c**t.
>Its a physical process, not a scientific process, you stupid c**t.
>what is physics
I seriously can't tell whether you're merely pretending to be moronic or not. I am baffled.
>I am baffled.
Seemingly your natural state.
I really pity your brain, anon.
I would expect nothing else from a midwit like you. IQ communication gap and all.
Just know that you're the outlier (moron) in this most basic of simplicities.
Yes, lets keep exchanging stupid one-sentence childish burns until we get this thread killed, please.
Prove to me scientifically that I cannot conceptualize a color without its extension.
> "Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks create self-consciousness, let alone how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you somehow brazenly declare that seeing is believing!"
Scientists are already painfully aware that humans are frustratingly *blind* to the universe.
>how neural networks create self-consciousness
They don't, at least not the ones we have so far. They can pretend all they want, but the current method of neural network making creates a very complicated xerox copier for words, by design. Not something that can think, but something that can try to predict what the next input has to be.
>how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception
The key here is in the fact we have two slightly different flat images. The difference gives us the third dimension (how close or far something is to us). See also: early "3D" movies that use the classic red/blue glasses and how the two sets of images that are slightly different (because they're shot on two different cameras sitting side by side)
Yes, I too have read about PPM in my first CogSci class, anon.
>The key here is in the fact we have two slightly different flat images.
Yes, I too have read Pinkers, anon.
So what is your argument? I won't contest the neural network, that tech is too new, but for eyesight we know how it works. We can use what we know to fool the brain into thinking a flat image is 3d. If that's not considered "understanding", then what is?
>but for eyesight we know how it works.
No we don't, no one understand how qualia works. I'm not gonna argue about that however given that I believe this could be eventually explained away, and that cognitive sciences are possibly yet too young.
And I'll add to this that if any anons wishes to challenge their base materialism through serious academic work, one of the best way to do so is to take a dive into the wonderful clusterfrick that is color ontology. For this I would highly recommend The Red and The Real, by Leonard Cohen (no, not that one).
>qualia
is it just scientists inventing more problems for themselves? We know there's different wavelengths for elecrtomagnetic waves, and that they interact with chemicals differently (this is how we made photo and video cameras). Why can't it interact similarly in our retina too? No I will not read your book, Leonard, don't even try to invent even more problems.
>but the way i perceive red might be different from-
Doesn't matter, as long as we both can agree when a color is red, or a shade of red, we see the colors simiarly, meaning the chemical process in our retina is similar enough (as it should be). The issue arises when you're colorblind and point at a "green for everyone else" apple and call it red, but that could be a malfunction of the retina or the rest of your brain that receives one chemical and mistakes it for another. Really, there's no need to complicate eyesight and color difference-ing(a thing we can recreate with chemicals in a camera) with your philosophical "but what if tho" wankery. And yes we can recreate different kinds of colorblindness using chemicals also.
>but how do you trust the chemicals in your brain-
If what I see and feel isn't real, then I am as not real as all around me, ergo I and everything else is real, because it's easier to multiply by 1 than by -1 or by i/-i if the end result of being able to factor that out is the same.
>Doesn't matter, as long as we both can agree when a color is red, or a shade of red, we see the colors simiarly, meaning the chemical process in our retina is similar enough (as it should be).
Except the whole reason people can go decades without ever realizing they're colorblind is because the names we give to colors and shades are arbitrary and our ability to verbally differentiate them is a result of education and not inherent understanding. If I'm color blind I will likely agree with everyone else when an apple is called "red" because my understanding of the color isn't actually based on what my retinas perceive, but instead on the general consensus that informed my understanding of what specific shades constitute "red" as a child.
>doesn't matter
Yes it does, you mongoloid. It has important implications to neurobio if the way I perceive red is different than the way you perceive red even though our cone cells/optical nerve/visual cortex respond to it in the same way. THAT would actually be fricking fascinating if that's the case.
Yes: Fae rules. Trying to understand magic via the scientific method will make it even more complicated and self contradicting. Because thats the fae rules.
>Is it even possible to keep science away from magic?
Depends on which category the work in question falls under.
>nonfiction
Concerns true events, true studies, proven facts, real people, etc.
Science is the systematic study of the natural & physical world through observation & experiment; magic is a supernatural/unnatural force/source.
In our world, everything is a part of nature, so actual magic doesn't exist. Science is very easy to keep away from things that don't even exist.
>fiction
Fiction concerns things that didn't happen, in whole or in part, but could plausibly happen. The answer to this is the same as the answer to nonfiction.
>fantasy
Fantasy is the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible/improbable.
It is impossible for our world to have supernatural/unnatural things, but due to the vastness of how many things are improbable (ranging from outright disproven theories to hypotheticals with little to no plausibility, to something some schmuck just came up with in his head) you can have anything in fantasy.
Our minds can't comprehend senses it doesn't possess, our bodies can't utilize muscles that don't exist; we certainly can't describe things we have no frame of reference for, but that's because of the way our real, nonfictional world works. We can establish that in a work of fantasy, this power doesn't belong in that world or that force is superior to its nature, these things can be true to that work of fantasy.
It's very easy to keep science away from magic, but in the end, it's all about how well others are able to engage the hypothetical & their ability to separate fantasy from reality.
The people who look at a work of fantasy and say its magic is a science or "effectively a science" have a similar cognitive incapability as the people you ask "how would you feel if you had breakfast this morning" who answer that they didn't have breakfast.
>sorry xister, but if something does anything, it's science. full stop.
mental illness
It takes mental illness to think he's wrong.
It takes mental illness to think shitposting on Ganker is science.
>no u
What is science to you?
If you're expecting a shitty one sentence definition that you can meticulously break down in a massive wall of text I'm not giving it to you. I'm here to shitpost, not read your thesis.
Yes. Make magic require physical fitness or social skills.
what the hell is this thread
there are multiple fictional universes where magic is drawn from things that are inherently illogical and a fool's errand to try and understand
According to the screenshot there being methods by which magic can be utilized inherently means there's a science to it. The screenshot is moronic, however, because when the repeatable results of an experiment require a degree of blind faith from the observer it becomes thaumaturgy, not science.
Give me an example so I can tear it to pieces
>nherently illogical and a fool's errand to try and understand
This isn't even fricking true in Lovecraft shit, eldritch knowledge may be damaging to the psyche, but it is absolutely something that can be "understood" and higher beings do treat the mind-bending mysticism as a genuine science. There's a whole story about a guy who Math'd so hard he could warp across the universe from his bedroom.
The OP's image is stupid and wrong. Science isn't a natural consequence of the laws or physics or metaphysics or whatever. It's a method of interpreting and trying to understand the universe.
So no, I don't think it's possible (and nor should you).
That said, you don't necessarily have to get actionable results from using the scientific method on magic. Things could be random based on some uninterpretable, meta-aware consciousness or something, I dunno.
Doesn't Knowing already create Unknowing in turn? All answers lead to more questions. Magic is simply the hazy glow just (currently and at any time) outside the ever-expanding borders of knowledge.
Easy.
>Axe always deals 2 hit points
>Fireball deals 1D6 hit points
I feel like all of these discussions arise from trying to create pre-modern fantasy settings then applying modern ideas to them
Magic isn’t science because its people have not invented science yet. They don’t apply the scientific method to their knowledge - probably they get all of their knowledge from the “ancients” and if those authorities never said anything about it no one ever learns it. Rarely someone comes up with something novel and then must successfully pass off his knowledge as having been written by those authorities all along. They have no concept of mass production or even technology advancing (besides thread spinning lmao)
Keep coping.
>science: This is totally what T-rex actually sounded like 100%
>also science: We have no idea how language evolved
complete fricking sham
I see you stopped replying to my posts since you knew you were losing the argument, and figured no one would notice you're the same person. I'll accept your admission of defeat graciously.
I wasn't speaking to you gay. You provided me shitpost material and nothing more.
You were, in fact, and are extremely furious. Thanks for confirming it.
>Immediately replies.
That's sad. Link your posts so I can actually argue with them. So far I've trounced everyone itt I've spoken too.
You haven't defeated a single argument, which is why you've run away in every case.
Just link your posts if you're so confident.
I'm every person in this thread, moron.
I'll be honest I tried following the reply chain from the post about language and yeah I'd believe this.
the magic has been lost
I have no skin in this moronic divide but I still think giant chickens with feathers could be insanely cool and utterly terrifying.
it's good that we can admit that we don't know, actually. that's kind of the whole point.
and no one has ever claimed absolute certainty about anything, and if they have, they're a fraud.
/tg/ is one of the dumbest boards confirmed
Yeah, this thread has me in a nihilistic funk because it's slowly dawning on me just how midwit and confused these people actually are.
I've had all kinds of arguments on /tg/, and through them all I've at least thought that it just boiled down to a difference of opinion.
Now I see that the very worldview a majority of us have is so defunct and out of whack with reality that we may as well be living on different planets. There's no communication that can get through a barrier of someone being so moronic they misunderstand basic principles about how the fricking universe works.
Insanity.
You're the one with an incorrect world view.
I didn't even describe my worldview, dilweed.
You could have just as easily assumed I was talking about your enemies in your petty little argument. Hell, I don't even know what your own position is because you're anonymous and I don't know which posts are yours.
moron.
OP is a complete autist. Science is the study of the laws of reality. It's the attempt to explain and catalogue how things function. For example, fires are heat + fuel + oxygen. This is repeatable, demonstrable, and follows a scientific understanding of fire.
What wouldn't be science is clicking your fingers and magically creating a fireball in the palm of your hands, which has no fuel, heat from nowhere, and often doesn't even need oxygen to appear and sustain itself. It goes AGAINST science. It goes AGAINST the laws of reality. It is the result of magic, which doesn't follow anything that science would be able to study.
>fires are heat + fuel + oxygen
A process.
>clicking your fingers and magically creating a fireball in the palm of your hands
Sounds like a process.
>which has no fuel, heat from nowhere, and often doesn't even need oxygen to appear and sustain itself
The fire is still fire, and came from somewhere, as everything does. I don’t care if it’s higher dimensional phenomena we cannot perceive. That’s still something.
>It goes AGAINST science
>It goes AGAINST the laws of reality
Nope. It works. A fireball was produced. If it’s wibbly-wobbly “I don’t know how I did it” it’s still a hidden, nuanced “science” nonetheless. A crashed UFO isn’t not (alien) science just because it makes no sense and defies our *understanding* of physics. Reality works with itself. What is unnatural or supernatural is merely relative. The magic of the past is the science of the future.
>which doesn't follow anything that science would be able to study.
Just because we can’t poke it doesn’t mean it’s not there. A black box. Magic is a black box. Sometimes poking a black box inevitably puts the poker inside of it. Sometimes magic isn’t magic to the magician. Magic is an angle. The elves in Lord of the Rings don’t even believe in (elven) magic. They’re too used to it. It doesn’t “defy” anything, not to them. Crazy how Tolkien knew this but modern fantasists do not. The IQ has dropped. Or you’re at the very least skewed in understanding basic simplicities.
>A process.
Putting a ladybird on top of a pile of sand and then singing "wheels on the bus" at it is also a process. It doesn't mean the laws of reality allow it to make fire.
Honestly, I didn't read the rest because your first line shows you don't get it.
Anon, there is science leading up to your horse shit level of thinking, right now, happening in your brain, as you type.
There is definitely science to you singing to a ladybug.
>There is definitely science to you singing to a ladybug.
>AND IT PRODUCING FIRE
Okay, you're just a moron.
That fire still came from somewhere, since it’s fire. When a wizard conjures fire, it’s fire, ergo physics. Fire hot.
>That fire still came from somewhere, since it’s fire
Nope, you're being a moron still and thinking it has to have been because of a scientific explanation. It's magic, the fire came from nowhere.
>It's magic, the fire came from nowhere.
Then it wouldn’t happen at all. Then there would be no fire. Fire is automatically subjected to physics. You lose.
>Then it wouldn’t happen at all.
Yes, it would. That's why it's magic. Do you get it now?
You don’t appear to get the ill-logic of your thinking processes.
No, you just don't seem to understand what magic is.
Magic is entirely psychological, anon. What is magic to one is not magic to another, and nothing can truly defy physics if it exists. What is “unnatural” or “supernatural” is merely based on familiarity. It’s all relative.
You need to grow up. If you can’t be smarter, be wiser.
No, we've just been over what magic is. Magic is
Do you get it now?
Nope. Magic is 100% psychological. You need to first consider something magic, in order for it to be magic. Because again, what is magic to one is not magic to another. It’s that simple. But go ahead and keep implying the likes of Tolkien and Clarke are idiots, it will make you look really good, surely.
Stop being a dishonest c**t. You just acknowledged if something can't happen and yet still does, then it must be magic. Stop trying to distract with other bullshit.
You fail at reading comprehension lmao
The human race is fricked with people like yourself diluting basic thinking
We've done this countless times already, OP. You were wrong then as well. Let's do the simple thought experiment that crippled you last time, again:
>aliens show up on Earth
>they know absolutely everything about how reality works
>in this thought experiment, there is nothing hidden from them, they literally know it all
>they see a mage cast a fireball
>smugly think it's one of many possible advanced scientific explanations
>mage explains some illogical, impossible method he used
>study the mage
>not a single explanation of reality actually fits what the mage did (in fact, many go against it)
>what the mage did is not possible by reality's standards, which the aliens know completely
>it is magic
Again, you can try to tie yourself up in knots over this, but this is what magic is.