Just for the record:
Both are bound by the laws of the universe. The existence of the magician would just prove that our understanding of the laws of the universe is less then complete. Knowing that, I would guess that there are others like him that I just don't know (he seems to be fairly quiet about his powers himself), so, without knowing anything else about him, Einstein is more impressive.
The thing is, he's not bound by the laws of the universe, specifically because he is using actual magic, which by definition defies the laws of the universe.
What makes it so impressive is that it is, by definition, impossible if you believe laws govern the universe.
No, it just means what we believe to be those laws is incorrect.
New evidence demands a revision of prior beliefs of limitations.
|
No, it just means what we believe to be those laws is incorrect.New evidence demands a revision of prior beliefs of limitations.
This isn't science, it's magic. It defies all logic and reason.
I personally, fundamentally believe such a being can not exist. Therefore if one does...damn.
I think the intent behind the question was comparing what Einstein did to change all of our perceptions of the universe through his intellectual study of it, to some random guy who just happens to be magic.
Einstein was a genius who created a new understanding of the universe that was counter to a prior understanding, but still fit within a logical and reasonable world.
This guy basically defies any reason or logic, therefore in a way invalidating reason and logic.
He isn't doing super science. He is legitimately magical. This can not exist in my world view, so if it suddenly appeared...wow.
It isn't real, it isn't going to happen. It is a hypothetical. But if it did happen, it would blow my mind.
By the same token, no one is trading all the political prisoners in the world for you kicking a Clydesdale to death, or giving you Hitlers skull. It is all hypothetical.
For me the question is "If someone who could do things outside of the bounds of the laws of the universe appeared, would that be more impressive than someone who redefined the laws of the universe."
To which I say yes.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If magic is possible in this universe, it is included in the underlying structure of the universe, thus it doesn't defy its laws. It may defy the laws of logic and reason as percieved by us, but that is not the same thing.
Your/our worldview =/= the laws of the universe.
Our perception of the laws of the universe =/= the laws of the universe.
As long as we don't know every last bit about the underlying structure of the universe, we don't know all of its laws thus we can only say that something is outside the bounds of the known laws of the universe.
And yes, I know the questions are hypothetical, but answering them without taking the premise seriously defies the tangential philosophic nature of the question, making the whole game of thought moot, unless you think every 'yes' or 'no' answer is routed in the same basic personality trait.
|
|
Yes - He can create rabbits out of nothing and cause coins to cease to exist. Fly him to famine zones to provide rabbit stew for everyone. Encase nuclear waste in lead coins for him to unmake. Et cetera. Even if it were for some reason impossible to learn how he did these things and/or increase our understanding of the universe, those few 'simple tricks' could be applied to profound effect.
No - Arguments that 'the ends justify the means' would only be valid if one could foresee all ends. We cannot. Therefor we should do the good directly in front of us.
Turtle - The money is irrelevant and I'd rather have a turtle than Hitler's skull.
If magic is possible in this universe, it is included in the underlying structure of the universe, thus it doesn't defy its laws. It may defy the laws of logic and reason as percieved by us, but that is not the same thing.
Your/our worldview =/= the laws of the universe.
Our perception of the laws of the universe =/= the laws of the universe.As long as we don't know every last bit about the underlying structure of the universe, we don't know all of its laws thus we can only say that something is outside the bounds of the known laws of the universe.
This This This.
|
|
And yes, I know the questions are hypothetical, but answering them without taking the premise seriously defies the tangential philosophic nature of the question, making the whole game of thought moot, unless you think every 'yes' or 'no' answer is routed in the same basic personality trait.
It isn't a philosophical question. It is a question. If someone appeared who was able to do things that are actually magical, is that more impressive than someone who used math to understand the universe differently than anyone before them.
I am an atheist. In my mind, by logic an reason and omnipotent being can not exist, because of all of the inherent logical fallacies that come with omnipotence. So if an omnipotent being appeared, my response would be some variation of "My bad" and my mind and worldview would be completely blown.
The very fact a magical being exists is contrary to everything I believe about the nature of the universe, because it would mean that the definable and testable laws of the universe were not applied to all things in the universe.
So if that were to occur...damn.
You are starting from a premise where it is impossible for this being to be magical, because magic would then become part of the universe. And that is fine and that is a way to answer the questions. Part of what makes the question so interesting is that it mirrors the person answering the question.
But you start from the presumption that all things conform to rules and laws that can be defined and understood, therefore he isn't magical, we just don't understand what the magician is doing.
I start from the same presumptions of reality. But I allow for (while not expecting) the possibility that everything I believe to be true could be wrong. Including that all things in the universe conform to laws.
1) Yes. I'm absolutely with feytharn that the magician does not defy the rules of the universe, but rather the rules of the universe as we know it. Still, a practical demonstration tends to be more impressive than theoretical proof.
2) No. For starters, my inhibition threshold for this kind of action is pretty high. Plus, I am pretty certain my physique won't enable me to kick a horse to death within 20 minutes.
3) I'd take the turtle. Displaying Hitler's skull here in Germany would be going to draw way too much attention, from anti-fascists to nazi nutcases, and a paltry $120 a month is nowhere even remotely near adequate compensation for the fuss this would rise.
I am an atheist. In my mind, by logic an reason and omnipotent being can not exist, because of all of the inherent logical fallacies that come with omnipotence.
Ah, but would the concept of a deity automatically imply that it had to be an omnipotent being? Is a mindset of 'It is well possible that there is a being, or beings out there which are well beyond my scope of understanding, or even imagination, and there is a non-zero chance that one, or several, are taking interest in what happens within the universe as we know it' in any contradiction to 'There cannot be an omnipotent being'?
|
|
Ah, but would the concept of a deity automatically imply that it had to be an omnipotent being? Is a mindset of 'It is well possible that there is a being, or beings out there which are well beyond my scope of understanding, or even imagination, and there is a non-zero chance that one, or several, are taking interest in what happens within the universe as we know it' in any contradiction to 'There cannot be an omnipotent being'?
Speaking as a polytheist, this. I believe in a number of powerful but very finite deities.
My mother (an atheist) has responded to my beliefs with "You don't really believe in Gods, just powerful aliens." My response was "What's the difference?"
|
|
You still don't understand me: I don't think of the laws of the universe as a set of rules and equasions that can be defined and understood at all.
In fact, it might be possible that the laws of the universe are completely beyond any form of understanding - that they are shere chaos and that what we perceive as definable laws are just a set of remarcable coincidences that we have wrongly perceived as an underlying structure of reality.
The laws of the universe, to me, have to be all inclusive, otherwise they become the laws of a part of the universe, probably of the part I have percieved until now. The laws of the universe are not the same thing as human laws or rules. We don't get to chose what is part of the laws and what is not - if anything exists in the universe, it is part of its laws, whether it is measurable, determinable or definable.#
You start from the prsumption that our world view, our perception of the laws of the universe is actually what makes the universe work and thus that anythink defying this perception is 'breaking' the laws of the universe.
edit: dounleninjad - this was a response to ciretose.
|
|
I am an atheist. In my mind, by logic an reason and omnipotent being can not exist, because of all of the inherent logical fallacies that come with omnipotence.Ah, but would the concept of a deity automatically imply that it had to be an omnipotent being? Is a mindset of 'It is well possible that there is a being, or beings out there which are well beyond my scope of understanding, or even imagination, and there is a non-zero chance that one, or several, are taking interest in what happens within the universe as we know it' in any contradiction to 'There cannot be an omnipotent being'?
No, but the concept of a deity does generally indicate a lack of conformity to the laws of the universe.
"God"s being generally seen as beyond the realm of the rules of the mortal universe.
I don't believe any of that. I have no evidence to believe any of that. But the question specifically says "He’s legitimately magical"
Magic is defined as supernatural, that is beyond the rules of nature. When the normal magician does a trick, it is a trick. They are doing something that conforms to reality, but in a way that it appears it does not.
I don't believe anything supernatural can exist, because I agree with you that anything that is supernatural would simply be something we don't yet understand about the nature of the rules of the universe.
But the question is asking "what if some things, including this guys lame tricks, don't conform the rules of the universe."
I think that is so profoundly unlikely, that I would be flabbergasted if I was wrong. If that guy existed, I would be wrong. So that is what is so impressive.
|
|
You still don't understand me: I don't think of the laws of the universe as a set of rules and equasions that can be defined and understood at all.
In fact, it might be possible that the laws of the universe are completely beyond any form of understanding - that they are shere chaos and that what we perceive as definable laws are just a set of remarcable coincidences that we have wrongly perceived as an underlying structure of reality.The laws of the universe, to me, have to be all inclusive, otherwise they become the laws of a part of the universe, probably of the part I have percieved until now. The laws of the universe are not the same thing as human laws or rules. We don't get to chose what is part of the laws and what is not - if anything exists in the universe, it is part of its laws, whether it is measurable, determinable or definable.#
You start from the prsumption that our world view, our perception of the laws of the universe is actually what makes the universe work and thus that anythink defying this perception is 'breaking' the laws of the universe.
edit: dounleninjad - this was a response to ciretose.
But I think you miss the basic point I'm trying to make. You and I both start from the assumption there are rules governing everything in the universe. I agree with you.
This guy would prove that wrong. Because he is "legitimately magical"
But the question is asking "what if some things, including this guys lame tricks, don't conform the rules of the universe."
Then those rules are either wrong or incomplete.
|
|
Ah, but would the concept of a deity automatically imply that it had to be an omnipotent being? Is a mindset of 'It is well possible that there is a being, or beings out there which are well beyond my scope of understanding, or even imagination, and there is a non-zero chance that one, or several, are taking interest in what happens within the universe as we know it' in any contradiction to 'There cannot be an omnipotent being'?Speaking as a polytheist, this. I believe in a number of powerful but very finite deities.
My mother (an atheist) has responded to my beliefs with "You don't really believe in Gods, just powerful aliens." My response was "What's the difference?"
A king is a very powerful being. Kings were once worshiped as gods.
Most people would say worshiping a King, while possibly practical, isn't the same thing as worshiping a God. Which is a whole other interesting topic that probably could be an entire other thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What?! Nobody's quoted Clarke yet: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Now get off my lawn, you whippersnappers! {shakes cane}
|
|
But the question is asking "what if some things, including this guys lame tricks, don't conform the rules of the universe."Then those rules are either wrong or incomplete.
I get your argument, I agree with your argument.
The question is asking us to assume we are wrong, and how impressive that would be.
You are saying "It is impossible for things to be other than this" and I am saying "I think it is so unlikely that things are unlike this that if i were wrong that would be the most impressive thing ever."
But the question is asking "what if some things, including this guys lame tricks, don't conform the rules of the universe."Then those rules are either wrong or incomplete.I get your argument, I agree with your argument.
The question is asking us to assume we are wrong, and how impressive that would be.
You are saying "It is impossible for things to be other than this" and I am saying "I think it is so unlikely that things are unlike this that if i were wrong that would be the most impressive thing ever."
Okay, so you're basically saying the guy is pulling off a legit miracle. The laws of the universe remain as we know them, but this guy is bending/breaking them regardless.
In that case, since I'm a theist who believes miracles ceased by the end of the first century, I'd have to rethink much of my whole philosophy.
|
|
But the question is asking "what if some things, including this guys lame tricks, don't conform the rules of the universe."Then those rules are either wrong or incomplete.I get your argument, I agree with your argument.
The question is asking us to assume we are wrong, and how impressive that would be.
You are saying "It is impossible for things to be other than this" and I am saying "I think it is so unlikely that things are unlike this that if i were wrong that would be the most impressive thing ever."
Okay, so you're basically saying the guy is pulling off a legit miracle. The laws of the universe remain as we know them, but this guy is bending/breaking them regardless.
In that case, since I'm a theist who believes miracles ceased by the end of the first century, I'd have to rethink much of my whole philosophy.
Exactly, which is why is it so impressive.
|
|
If the question had been: Would the magic of this man have a greater impact then Einsteins theories, my answer would be: yes!
The question as I read it was: Is the magician more impressive then Einstein - a man who, as far as I know could be born with a meager talent that challenges our perception of reality more impressive than a guy who developed ideas and thoughts that challenged our perception of reality in his time, my answer would be: no!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it just means what we believe to be those laws is incorrect.New evidence demands a revision of prior beliefs of limitations.
This isn't science, it's magic. It defies all logic and reason.
False assumption.
Quantum physics confirms the existence of "real" magic - its just too difficult to do in any macroscopic sense at our current state of technology and understanding. A "real" magician would essentially just have found a way to do what we know can be done theoretically.
If your basic assumption is that "magic defies logic and reason", then yes - you are right. But something as "trivial" as those magic tricks mentioned in question 1. That is scientifically possible. (Yes, pulling a real rabbit out of a hat without using a simple trick is quantum mechanically possible.)
(Yes, pulling a real rabbit out of a hat without using a simple trick is quantum mechanically possible.)
Not exactly probable, though...
(Yes, pulling a real rabbit out of a hat without using a simple trick is quantum mechanically possible.)Not exactly probable, though...
That wasn't the assertion :)
|
1. Yes. Al failed math. His theories today are falling apart under greater understanding. Don't get me wrong, he was an innovative leader and thinker of his day, but we've moved on.
The idea that Einstein was bad at math is apocryphal. He excelled at math and science while in school. Also, he had a very good understanding of sophisticated mathematical concepts. In fact he almost decided to pursue mathematics but thought that physics would give greater insight about the nature of reality.
As for "moving on" - as a physicist this makes me cringe. Einstein's theories of special and general relativity form the bones of modern physics. General relativity is a highly active field of research with new graduate students joining every day. It explains most of our macro universe - with the exception of singularities (which make up a tiny fraction of the universe). A current experiment has been underway for the last ten or so years (LIGO) that is searching for gravitational radiation which is something that was predicted by Einstein.
Also, his work on the photoelectric effect, along with work by Max Planck, gave birth to quantum mechanics, which along with special relativity, forms the basis of the standard model. Without this there would be no search for the Higgs Boson so there would be no CERN.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I argue that the "magic" of incredible genius -- that of Einstein for example -- is more impressive than the magic, albeit "unexplained" or "real" or "supernatural" of the wizard's in the OP's example.
People without genius can often not really recognize the difference between the way they see the world and the way others with genius see it -- it can be viewed as "magic" in the same way that everyone's favorite Dickens character views being able to read, mere literacy, as magic.
Einstein's magic is greater.
|
|
False assumption.
Quantum physics confirms the existence of "real" magic
Actually it doesn't. It is something we don't yet understand. It is a thing that conforms to rules we don't yet grasp.
The entire premise of the question is that this person is actually magical, as in we would all be wrong and magic would actually exist, and bunnies can be created out of nothing if someone wishes it to be for no logical reason that conforms to the laws of the universe that govern everything else.
It isn't an assumption, it is the basic premise of the question. That the person is "legitimately magical"
Rejecting the premise of the question is fine as an answer, but the premise of the question is that the man is magic.
|
|
I argue that the "magic" of incredible genius -- that of Einstein for example -- is more impressive than the magic, albeit "unexplained" or "real" or "supernatural" of the wizard's in the OP's example.
People without genius can often not really recognize the difference between the way they see the world and the way others with genius see it -- it can be viewed as "magic" in the same way that everyone's favorite Dickens character views being able to read, mere literacy, as magic.
Einstein's magic is greater.
Einstein wasn't magic. He used logic and reason, which is the opposite of magic.
I think people are so invested in the belief that magic is impossible that they are forgetting that it being impossible is more or less what defines it as "magic" rather than "science".
If the man is doing something that is "legitimately magical" he is almost by definition doing something that is impossible.
I completely understand that you all believe it is impossible for anything to not conform to the laws of the universe. I agree with you.
But the premise of the question is that we are all wrong, and that this guy is "legitimately magical" and what he can do, regardless of how useless and impractical it may be, is outside of the rules all other things in the universe must conform to.
Which is why it would be incredible in the most true sense of the word.
I think what W E Ray is saying is that Einstein helping us understand the workings of the universe around us is more worthwhile and amazing than someone who casually breaks them, as his contribution brought understanding and knowledge to people whereas the magician's is just interesting and unfathomable.
1) No.
2) No.
3) Hitler's skull.
|
|
I think what W E Ray is saying is that Einstein helping us understand the workings of the universe around us is more worthwhile and amazing than someone who casually breaks them, as his contribution brought understanding and knowledge to people whereas the magician's is just interesting and unfathomable.
I think he is saying that the magician isn't "magic". Which is the premise of the question.
A good case can be made that Einstein being more useful makes him more interesting, but he wasn't "magic" in the sense of defying the laws of the universe.
I think you're using two different definitions of magic. You're being literal. He's not. ;)
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stolen from Chuck Klosterman, yet I've found them accurate in my experience.
1. Let us assume you met a rudimentary magician. Let us assume he can do five simple tricks–he can pull a rabbit out of his hat, he can make a coin disappear, he can turn the ace of spades into the Joker card, and two others in a similar vein. These are his only tricks and he can’t learn any more; he can only do these five. HOWEVER, it turns out he’s doing these five tricks with real magic. It’s not an illusion; he can actually conjure the bunny out of the ether and he can move the coin through space. He’s legitimately magical, but extremely limited in scope and influence.
If the magician's two similar tricks are that he can make rabbits disappear and pull coins out of his hat, I would accept a stipend of $120 per month to have him shackled to the ground in my living room for two years.
Yes.
Yes.
Hitler.
and bunnies can be created out of nothing if someone wishes it to be for no logical reason that conforms to the laws of the universe that govern everything else
Just because quantum mechanics does ensure that someone can wish for (and receive) a bunny out of nothing, doesn't make it logical. Something that cannot exist, cannot exist - if your "real magic user" exists, then it means that real magic isn't existence shattering.
However, let's spin this a step further and work with your assumption. Assume we have a magician that uses real magic that conjures a bunny out of a hat. Now also assume we have an average highschooler that also pulls a bunny out of a hat using quantum mechanics. It would be impossible to determine which method was used by each of the two. The two methods would in the truest sense of the word be indistinguishable.
At this point Occam's Razor applies.
As a side note, this would also lead to the poor magician being ignored as yet another quantumizer and his amazing talent would go unrecognized.
|
|
and bunnies can be created out of nothing if someone wishes it to be for no logical reason that conforms to the laws of the universe that govern everything elseJust because quantum mechanics does ensure that someone can wish for (and receive) a bunny out of nothing, doesn't make it logical. Something that cannot exist, cannot exist - if your "real magic user" exists, then it means that real magic isn't existence shattering.
However, let's spin this a step further and work with your assumption. Assume we have a magician that uses real magic that conjures a bunny out of a hat. Now also assume we have an average highschooler that also pulls a bunny out of a hat using quantum mechanics. It would be impossible to determine which method was used by each of the two. The two methods would in the truest sense of the word be indistinguishable.
At this point Occam's Razor applies.
As a side note, this would also lead to the poor magician being ignored as yet another quantumizer and his amazing talent would go unrecognized.
Except of course we are dealing with a hypothetical situation that is telling you that what this guy is doing is "literally magic"
Much like I don't know why you believe that all the prisoners will be freed, I don't know why you know this is actually magic and not science.
But you do, for the purposes of the question.
So it is completely distinguishable for the purposes of the question because it is part of the question. The magician is "Literally Magical" and we know this because that is exactly what the question says.
The fact you don't believe that is possible for anyone to be "magical" is no more relevant than the fact that I don't think it is possible that I'm going to be offered Hitler's skull or that political prisoners will be released because I kicked a Clydesdale to death.
It is a hypothetical question. These are the parameters of the question.
The fact that it is so far beyond either of our scopes of belief for anyone to be literally magical is exactly why it is so impressive.
|
|
No, it just means what we believe to be those laws is incorrect.New evidence demands a revision of prior beliefs of limitations.
This isn't science, it's magic. It defies all logic and reason.
False assumption.
Quantum physics confirms the existence of "real" magic - its just too difficult to do in any macroscopic sense at our current state of technology and understanding. A "real" magician would essentially just have found a way to do what we know can be done theoretically.
If your basic assumption is that "magic defies logic and reason", then yes - you are right. But something as "trivial" as those magic tricks mentioned in question 1. That is scientifically possible. (Yes, pulling a real rabbit out of a hat without using a simple trick is quantum mechanically possible.)
I am not sure I understand why quantum physics confirms the existence of "real" magic. Also, how would pulling a real rabbit out of a hat without using illusion be quantum mechanically possible?
A friend of mine and I spent a day a few weeks back seeing who could come up with the worst gaming-themed pickup lines.
That is all I can think of now.
1. Depends...can he explain how it works?
2. Yes.
3. Skull.
1. NO - Magic IS Science
2. NO -
3. Skull - especially if I'm allowed to regularly pee on it.
|
|
1. No
2. Yes
3. Turtle
Further explanation:
The guy who can do real magic is awesome, and should find apprentices. But Einstein was not limited in what he could do.
--
The greater good. Speaks volumes about me right there. Although I would ask others for prayers/spirit songs/thanks to the horse.
--
I like turtles. I don't want skulls in my home.
Cheers!
|
|
The thing is, he's not bound by the laws of the universe, specifically because he is using actual magic, which by definition defies the laws of the universe.
What makes it so impressive is that it is, by definition, impossible if you believe laws govern the universe.
If that was verifiably true, then I would disregard the magician because once you start going down that road I get to bring in awesome arguments like the magician not existing and solipsism and nihilism.
But, assuming that the existence of his magic means that the laws of the universe are different from those we know (maybe it's just that one of the laws is that, "hey this dude is insanely magic"),1. Magician: I'd want to ask him what it was like with all this fame and stuff and then interrogate him about the provability of his powers.
2. Never. Here's an opposing proposition:
You stand on a bridge behind a large person. A train containing twenty people is directed on tracks that lead off of a cliff. You can push the large person onto the tracks to stop the train (killing thon), or you can let the twenty people perish.
3. I'm poor but money doesn't really matter, so if I could keep the turtle I would. Turtles are awesomely low-maintenance.
Though I think very few people on this thread actually give a s+!& about keeping a Hitler skull in their home?
|
|
2. Never. Here's an opposing proposition:
You stand on a bridge behind a large person. A train containing twenty people is directed on tracks that lead off of a cliff. You can push the large person onto the tracks to stop the train (killing thon), or you can let the twenty people perish.
Here's another: You're riding a horse. You know for a fact that a village will die if you don't get there in time. Do you ride the horse to death to get there in time?
It's a much more equivalent situation because for me, and many others, human life =/= animal life. Human life trumps that of something like a horse. It just does.
.
.
.
Of course, I'm a ruthless bastard, I'd kill the person on the train tracks, too. Though only if jumping myself wouldn't do the job.
But not everyone who picked killing the horse would do the same if it was human. It's just a horse, after all.