>>96086908
Again, how does this guarantee conservation laws? Why can there not be a natural law who's function outputs a higher value than the sum of all its inputs even in a counterfactual where ours are explicitly wrong?

>>96086917
>Arguing that magic can’t be physics is downright religious
Only if you assume "physics" MUST be all-encompassing, which no few physicists and quite large swaths of the world disagree on.

>>96086935
Science remains a very particular process of empirical reduction. To simplify it beyond this inevitably loses properties required for its success.

>>96086949
As I said the last time:
>And that angle can simply be factually incorrect.

>The argument depends on the far more widespread view that physics does not encompass all things, and so knowing all of it does not mean knowing everything.

>Says the one who cannot grasp the hypothetical of specific archaic conceptions of "magic" being objective phenomena.

>>96086977
And all that doesn't matter when your definition of "magic" extends beyond the synonym to "wondrous".

>>96087015
Maybe point out the totalizing midwit is repeating the exact same posts he made not even a day ago.