Do you believe in magic?

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

12 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

You just do not find them valid.

Because those are just excuses that stops working the second you spend more than a second thinking about it.

14 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

What proof that is offered is always dismissed and yet you keep clamoring " prove it ".

Kind of funny how you keep bringing up this point without ever saying what proof exactly is being offered.

15 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

. I have shown the mere observation impacts reality. 

Yeah, but as previously explained that's constant and not just happening when people need it to happen.

16 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Magic uses energy

You don't know that, it might be using tomato sauce. 

18 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

er mind the fact that observation could lead to a consistent point of failure

Except it's not consistent, since some times people can observe it and sometimes they can't. 

19 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

ng a picture? Could that not be another point of failure? A mundane request being ignored

I've seen plenty of people claiming to use magic gmfor much more mundane things.

20 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

icular claim. But the proof that mere observation can impact reality and a molecular level leaves a very real possibility

Except not, because in that case it's constant and in this case it isn't. 

21 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

No, but it's pretty telling when a claim have zero evidence to back it up. 

21 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Never mind there are indeed cases of spontaneous remissions of disease that doctors can't for the life of theme explain. 

True, but that doesn't prove shit. All those people might have drank soda at some point before their recovery, does that mean that soda cures dieses?

20 minutes ago, Millennium Shadow said:

f someone does us magic publicly, they'd do it in a way were it's not really noticeable.

But plenty of people claim to be able to use magic publicly in a way that's noticeable. So I don't really see your point. 

[Jedishy 3,542]

4 minutes ago, Gestum said:

Because what proof that is offered is someone going "Well, I can't prove it exists but I swear it does". Why should I believe that over the laws of physics? 

11 minutes ago, Millennium Shadow said:

The laws of physics say that merely looking at matter impacts it. What more could be done with ritual and focus?

 

4 minutes ago, Sun Wukong said:

Yeah, but as previously explained that's constant and not just happening when people need it to happen.

30 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

The only thing consistent was that it was random scatter when observed and went through each hole regularly when not. IE randomness when observed and some level of consistency when it was not.  In short, there was no 100 percent consistency in either case and no explanation for the how and why of observations impact. Add all the variables of magic and tell me more about expecting consistency when we do not know the rules for sure nor can we measure it currently to get there. 

 

12 minutes ago, Sun Wukong said:

I've seen plenty of people claiming to use magic gmfor much more mundane things.

37 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

As you said claims are not proof. You do not believe they can do such things. Why should I take that as evidence any more then you take my claims? That is just it. I do not expect you to believe. I merely find the reasons behind dismissing its possibility to be silly. Subtle but key difference. 

 

8 minutes ago, Sun Wukong said:

Except it's not consistent, since some times people can observe it and sometimes they can't. 

33 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Hence the word COULD not will or shall or any word with surety. Further, see above the experiment mentioned was not consistent in itself. Like I said humans themselves are a variable that even the same person day to day changes enough to potentially change results. 

 

9 minutes ago, Sun Wukong said:

No, but it's pretty telling when a claim have zero evidence to back it up. 

35 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Yup and the sun did not cause cancer in 200 BC because there was zero evidence to back that up in that time period nor would there be for many thousands of years. 

 

10 minutes ago, Sun Wukong said:

True, but that doesn't prove shit. All those people might have drank soda at some point before their recovery, does that mean that soda cures dieses?

32 minutes ago, Millennium Shadow said:

See above example it could be the Og ate a berry before getting cancer too. So ya know it was not the sun it was the berry. In short cant test it must not be possible. Right? 

[Gestum 2,493]

22 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

38 minutes ago, Gestum said:

 

The laws of physics say that merely looking at matter impacts it. What more could be done with ritual and focus?

No it does not. It says that observing some phenomena changes the outcome of them. However there's no evidence to show that we can change the outcome how we want by rituals and focus. 

51 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Yup and the sun did not cause cancer in 200 BC because there was zero evidence to back that up in that time period nor would there be for many thousands of years. 

Just because we found evidence for one theory doesn't mean that another theory is also true.

And simply assuming that a theory is real based on the fact that one can't technically disprove it is rather silly. I can't really disprove that Obama will come over and eat dinner at my house tomorrow, but I shouldn't act like he will.

[Jedishy 3,542]

2 minutes ago, Gestum said:

No it does not. It says that observing some phenomena changes the outcome of them. However there's no evidence to show that we can change the outcome how we want by rituals and focus.

Umm yes, it does. An observer of an experiment changes the way the matter acts. That is literally observation impacting matter. I did not say that we choose the way its impacted. I simply said that observation impacts matter so how much COULD focus and ritual play a part. 

4 minutes ago, Gestum said:

And simply assuming that a theory is real based on the fact that one can't technically disprove it is rather silly. I can't really disprove that Obama will come over and eat dinner at my house tomorrow, but I shouldn't act like he will.

Would it hurt you to act like he might show up by keeping your house clean and cooking good meals? Never mind that its not just we can't disprove it so believe. I am saying there are many many accounts, many things like faith healers, spontaneous remission the experiment mentioned that all add up to possibilities. 

[Olly 1,008]

First you (whoever is asking the question) has to define "magic". "Magic" is an extremely vague word but my guess would be that it's used to describe someone causing something to happen without logical explanation as to how they caused the thing to happen. Meaning that if you were to explain an act of magic, the moment you do, it's no longer magic. And since anything can (in theory) be explained, there can't be magic, unless there's some better definition of it. Then there's  "Magick" but that's another word 

[Gestum 2,493]

5 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Umm yes, it does. An observer of an experiment changes the way the matter acts. That is literally observation impacting matter

Ah, sorry I misunderstood your point. My bad. 

5 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

I simply said that observation impacts so how much COULD focus and ritual play a part.

Judging by the evidence, nothing. Nothing in the observer effect imply that focus and rituals plays a part. They theoretically could, but it's simply absurd to act like they do without any evidence.

5 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Would it hurt you to act like he might show up by keeping your house clean and cooking good meals?

Well, I would probably stay home from work to clean and cook. And I would probably spend more money than I probably could afford on the food. Also I would be pretty bummed out when he didn't come over after haveing spend a day cooking and cleaning for him. And if I did that every day then it would have a negative effect on me. 

And acting like magic is real can and does have a negative effect on people. Sick people uses crystals instead of actual medicine for an example.

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

1 hour ago, Jedishy said:

The only thing consistent was that it was random scatter when observed and went through each hole regularly when not.

And your point is? Is still constant in the way that it acts a certain way 100% of the time when observed, unlike magic which only does it when you need to prove it's real. And that's why you can't use this experiment as an argument for magic. 

Like yeah, this experiment does prove that observation can have an effect on what's being observed. But it doesn't prove that the effect is going to completely random. 

1 hour ago, Jedishy said:

Why should I take that as evidence any more then you take my claims?

Because it uses the same logic as your argument. What makes your magic true, but this one false?

1 hour ago, Jedishy said:

Yup and the sun did not cause cancer in 200 BC because there was zero evidence to back that up in that time period nor would there be for many thousands of years. 

But your comparing apples and orangutans. For this to be a fair comparison, the only proof of the sun causing cancer would be that we can't prove it doesn't.

 

[Olly 1,008]

Heads up guys, observing matter at small scales (like matter changing from waves to particles) has more to do with the interference of the equipment necessary to observe them, like the way a thermometer raises or lowers the temperature of what you're measuring. The way something is observed is what causes the observer effect, the observer themselves doesn't change anything.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Olly

[Steel Accord 6,658]

If you mean casting spells like in Harry Potter OP. No. If you mean do I believe there are forces at work between Heaven and Earth, than absolutely yes.

[Quantum Pony 40]

Long time ago, the magnetic properties associated with a compass would probably be considered magical. Then, some time later a British guy came along and said "Wellll, lets just make this magical force a Force (in a scientific way)." They then experimented on its properties and wrote down a few equations and BOOM, magnetism became science rather than magic. So one can argue that anything that seems magical can one day be explained by science (as few other posts had already pointed out).

Now let us look at Equestria and consider the following: Aside from the four fundamental forces of nature, the ponies discovered unicorns can control a fifth fundamental force. They experimented on it, wrote books on it and were able to consistently reproduce different feats such as teleportation or levitation based on fixed sets of instructions. Finally, they decided to give this fifth force a name: "Magic". But to the ponies, it is no different from the other forces of nature as they understood it well enough by applying the scientific method. For example, Starlight trying to combine Accelero spell and Similo Duplexis spell to allow her to be in two place at once (making a hypothesis/conjecture). She then casted the spell (conducting an experiment) and it worked! Eventually, they can probably explain "Magic" using mathematics as well (if they had not done so already).

So I would argue "Magic" in Equestria is scientific. 

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

6 minutes ago, Quantum Pony said:

So one can argue that anything that seems magical can one day be explained by science (as few other posts had already pointed out).

That's at best changing the defination to fit the goal. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it's magic. 

It's like saying that unicorns used to exist since people used to think the horn of narwhales were actually unicorn horns. 

[Quantum Pony 40]

8 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

That's at best changing the defination to fit the goal. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it's magic. 

Yup, its all depends on the definition  

I'd say that in our world, almost all acts of "Magic" are not reproducible. Some clever tricks, illusions or in some cases just statistical anomalies. 

The tiny subset of actions that are reproducible can probably be well explained  using our knowledge of science today. 

The tiny tiny tiny subset of actions that are not statistical anomalies, reproducible and seems unable to be explained by the science of today, can probably be explained by the science of tomrrow  .

[Lucky Bolt 34,914]

I'll just say this: I believe in certain forms of magic. 

[TBD 17,228]

No really but I believe in curse. But man..I wish wizarding world is real though.

[IronM17 5,145]

No, magic isn't real, these are only tricks (I know some because I had a phase where I was interested in making magic tricks). And I am honest, I hate it when some illusionist say that his illusions are real magic. Magic is a form of entertainment. But I always have the feeling that people who say, that they have real magic, only want to be something special, something bigger than others. And I don't like this.

[Mirage 24,074]

Science can't explain why the universe operates so lawfully under its 'rules'. Awareness of these physical laws is what science it all about. Nobody invented them, no event created them, and there is absolutely no trace of where they came from or how they came to be. This is what establishes our 'ordinary world'. It's predictable, somewhat mysterious but not really, and every cynic out there is more than certain that there is nothing special about it.

This is why I believe in magic. Our particular experience of this world does not mean it is and always will be the only experience. The rules actually imply that there is more...