← Home ← Back to /tg/

Thread 96240712

314 posts 42 images /tg/
Anonymous No.96240712 >>96240973 >>96241181 >>96241232 >>96241255 >>96241288 >>96243785 >>96244532 >>96244955 >>96251230 >>96255960 >>96258588 >>96261335 >>96268261 >>96273543 >>96283026
Magic in your Sci-fi tee gee
How come sci-fi systems with supernatural powers tend to stay within the realm of telekinesis or psionics? In a setting with aliens and highly advanced tech, would conjuring fireballs and hailstorms really be out of place?
Anonymous No.96240973 >>96241255 >>96263858
>>96240712 (OP)
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' - Arthur C. Clarke
Anonymous No.96241181 >>96244850 >>96244919
>>96240712 (OP)
That's just how some people like it. Telekinesis and Psionics are about mastery over the brain and the myth of humanity's untapped mental potential, so when the emphasis is on going with science and humanity's collective intellect working to push the setting forward, it can be natural to turn to thinking about making that untapped potential myth into reality.

TL;DR That's just other people's preference, man.
Anonymous No.96241232 >>96243634
>>96240712 (OP)
the trick to make magic sci-fi is to not call it magic and make it purple. Nooooo, this isnt a firestorm! This is.... uuuhm... a psionic vortex, haha! What? It does area damage in the exact same way a fireball would? Silly you, this is space science, not wizardry! And now do throw this bolt of dark matter in the same way you would throw a frostbolt, will you?
Anonymous No.96241255 >>96241334 >>96241458 >>96241499 >>96245058 >>96255095 >>96261869
>>96240712 (OP)
It provides a vaneer of "science!" But it's not necessary. If you want magic have magic--who gives a shit. Science fiction is science fiction because it says "what if X was true in our world? What might our world therefore be like?" You can have magic in that, if you want to.

>>96240973
God damn this is a stupid-ass quote from a mediocre author. No it isn't. The scientific theory is based on observable, testable, reproducible hypothesis. Magic, by definition, violates natural law.
Anonymous No.96241288 >>96261335
>>96240712 (OP)
>In a setting with aliens and highly advanced tech, would conjuring fireballs and hailstorms really be out of place?

Not really, but using space magic to control different phases of plasma sounds cooler and more plausable with a sci-fi window dressing than throwing a magic snowball.
Anonymous No.96241334 >>96241369
>>96241255
>implying there are no specieses in your scifi setting that have the ability to do the observable, testable, reproducible hypothesis
>plot twist: there is always one, 90% of cases named 'The Precursors'
Anonymous No.96241369 >>96241396 >>96241466
>>96241334
I don't understand why you're implying either of those.
Anonymous No.96241396 >>96241406
>>96241369
>Magic, by definition, violates natural law.
>according to less advanced specieses
>more advanced specieses or genous in those less advanced ones (like "shamans") explain how magic is part of the nature, therefore obey natural laws, that just are unknown for less advanced ones
Anonymous No.96241406
>>96241396
>according to less advanced specieses
No idea why you're adding on premises and trying to attribute them to other people. That seems pretty stupid, anon.
Anonymous No.96241458 >>96241473 >>96261335
>>96241255
>Magic, by definition, violates natural law.
Plenty of "magic" from real world traditions, you know the shit people really believe in and not just some new age bullshit, is seen as being perfectly natural. Likewise plenty of modern fantasy works have magic that is also perfectly natural to the setting.
The notion that magic has to be this unknowable, un-quantifiable, mystical and un-natural thing seems msotly to come from people who want to have something about which nothing can really be known, so that they can't be wrong about it. Probably due to the trauma of failing hard in school.
Anonymous No.96241466 >>96241488
>>96241369
NTA, but our understanding of "natural law" is based on the current scientific consensus.

If some kind of "magic" comes along which violates (our understanding of) natural law in a way which is observable, testable and reproducible, then our understanding is wrong and the magic is just a poorly understood part of nature which science will illuminate given time.

This is where all the autism about "well magic is science not magic" comes from, because magic which responds in a systematic fashion is just another part of the natural world. If you can reason about magic's behavior, learn about it, study it etc and get useful results then you are just doing plain old science. In theory, you *could* have magic in a setting that is truly arbitrary and unpredictable, but then you couldn't have wizards doing magic rituals and shit and having it work. People who "wield" magic powers fundamentally need to be able to study and reproduce that magic. Hence magic isn't really magic in most settings.

Psionics follows the line of "magic is another area of scientific study" by having psionic powers be relatively simple and mechanical in terms of their physical behavior, which implies that the "magic" is just the manipulation of a natural processes.
Anonymous No.96241473 >>96241628 >>96261335
>>96241458
>Plenty of "magic" from real world traditions, you know the shit people really believe in and not just some new age bullshit, is seen as being perfectly natural.
Yes, I agree with you. That is traditionally how what we term magic was seen by ancient people. Drop a rock and it falls because of the earth god or whatever. Write a prayer and it comes true because of the wish god. That's how ancient people understood the power of what we today call magic.

But you're ignoring the part where we're assuming that science already exists in the setting. Because once that happens, then the line between science and magic moves.
Anonymous No.96241488
>>96241466
>NTA, but our understanding of "natural law" is based on the current scientific consensus.
Incorrect. Natural law includes those things we don't know yet but can theoretically learn.
Anonymous No.96241499 >>96241506
>>96241255
>Magic, by definition, violates natural law
No it doesn't. Don't invent definitions and expect everyone to agree with your nonsense.
Anonymous No.96241504
But why do they always assume that in a setting where everything is hyper advanced Type 3 civilization that there's absolutely ZERO room for any form of unexplainable/unknowable phenomena?
>okay this nigga can manipulate the kinetic energy of molecules yadda yadda and that's how he can conjure fire
>how is he able to do that? who the fuck knows
Anonymous No.96241506 >>96241521
>>96241499
You're welcome to propose a definition that doesn't, anon. I'm not the arbiter of what you're allowed to say on 4chan. Propose whatever you please.
Anonymous No.96241521 >>96241526 >>96241580
>>96241506
Doing things that are generally understood to be impossible. Which agrees with Clarke, since the whole point is that as what is generally understood changes, so does what counts as magic.
Anonymous No.96241526 >>96241546
>>96241521
>Doing things that are impossible
>Violates natural law
Those are the same thing, anon. And the difference is that, if it's scientific, it can be explained. And if it's magic, it can't. And the reason it can't be is because it violates...

Try to figure it out. We'll wait.
Anonymous No.96241546 >>96241557
>>96241526
How the fuck can you miss the point so hard? I even explicitly pointed out the significant difference.
Anonymous No.96241557 >>96241600
>>96241546
Because you're wrong, anon. No: "what's scientific" isn't determined by "whether or not people generally understand it." What's magic isn't determined by "whether or not people generally understand it." Absolutely no one uses either of those words in those ways. We currently do not have a full grasp of quantum physics. No one confuses it with magic.
Anonymous No.96241580 >>96241600
>>96241521
>Doing things that are generally understood to be impossible.
So when you see a stage magician perform a card trick that you cannot figure out, your assumption is that the stage magician is in a pact with the devil and performing miracles?

That's what you're claiming, right?
Anonymous No.96241600 >>96242264 >>96265827
>>96241557
We have an incredibly good grasp of quantum physics. We don't know how to reconcile it with relativity, but that's not remotely the same thing.
People confuse all sorts of things they don't understand for magic.
>>96241580
Pretending to be retarded does not make you smart. There is no way you could sincerely think that's anything like what I meant.
Anonymous No.96241628
>>96241473
> Because once that happens, then the line between science and magic moves.
Yeah, it becomes that science is the shit that’s real and magic is all made up.
Anonymous No.96241992 >>96243521
>Perhaps Arthur C. Clarke was being uncharacteristically unambitious. He once pointed out that any sufficiently advanced technology is going to be indistinguishable from magic. If you dropped in on a bunch of Paleolithic farmers with your iPhone and a pair of sneakers, you'd undoubtedly seem pretty magical. But the contrast is only middling: The farmers would still recognize you as basically like them, and before long they'd be taking selfies. But what if life has moved so far on that it doesn't just appear magical, but appears like physics?
>These possibilities might seem wholly untestable, because part of the conceit is that sufficiently advanced life will not just be unrecognizable as such, but will blend completely into the fabric of what we’ve thought of as nature.
>In other words, part of the fabric of the universe is a product of intelligence or is perhaps even life itself.
https://archive.is/20230517105657/https://nautil.us/is-physical-law-an-alien-intelligence-236218/

Designers are lazy and fall back on marvel movies or comic books. This is too woo-woo for real philosophy but I think the most fitting "magic system" for scifi would be very lovecraftian. If someone a billion years ago rewrote the laws of physics, we might be able to exploit the bugs in his code. I'm going to use a sapient math problem to break physics and drop the room BELOW absolute zero motherfucker, make a sanity check and a save against frostbite. Thus is also basically how Vancian magic works in-universe.
Anonymous No.96242264
>>96241600
>We have an incredibly good grasp of quantum physics. We don't know how to reconcile it with relativity
I have an incredible bridge to sell to you for a cheap, cheap price.
Anonymous No.96243509 >>96243522 >>96243535 >>96243591 >>96243601 >>96244532 >>96244753 >>96244978
To someone who isn’t stupid science fiction is another form of fantasy fiction.

But.

What causes mental illness like >>96172505 ?

>This makes them feel smug and special, as if they have discovered some secret knowledge that everyone else somehow missed

Realizing that things are the same even when they take different shape/genre doesn’t require a high intelligence. It’s easy to miss, not hard to get. That’s more embarrassing. He’s projecting he’s own failures to understand something on to the people educating him.

So what causes this mental blockage?

Anyone?
Anonymous No.96243521
>>96241992
>In other words, part of the fabric of the universe is a product of intelligence or is perhaps even life itself.
If you consider that AI is just numbers, and that if/when AI develops consciousness… then… math is, or can be, conscious.

The idea that the universe, or existence itself, is a larger than life intelligence isn’t really all that weird. There are worlds within worlds, within us, right now, waging wars.
Anonymous No.96243522 >>96243542 >>96243546 >>96243579
>>96243509
Sci-fi isn't fantasy, they are both branches of speculative fiction. In the same way that cats are not dogs but they are both mammals.

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

Hope that helps!
Anonymous No.96243535
>>96243509
>So what causes this mental blockage?
Autism. They struggle seeing toads as frogs. “No they’re toads”.
Anonymous No.96243542 >>96243553
>>96243522
>Sci-fi isn't fantasy
Oh look. Another one. If you think Star Trek isn’t fantasy to the sufficiently educated physicist then you’re sadly an idiot. Have a nice day!
Anonymous No.96243546 >>96243584
>>96243522
A desperate and lonely housewife can have fantasies about her chad Latino gardener you fuckwit.
Anonymous No.96243553 >>96243584 >>96243791
>>96243542
You grasp he is talking about book categorizations, yes? You're not a retard that is intentionally misusing the word to act like a smug retard, right?
Anonymous No.96243579 >>96243597
>>96243522
At the risk of starting another flame war, they are mostly the same thing. It’s why “speculative fiction” even became a thing. Fantasy and science fiction both define themselves by asking “what if” and telling a story from there. “What if spaceships and robots?” is not, fundamentally speaking, much different from “What if elves and orcs?”. Both genres are stepping outside of standard reality, in which a series of events occur.
Anonymous No.96243584 >>96243597 >>96243615 >>96244532
>>96243553
No I’m just using words more holistically and less autistically. Please keep up.
>You're not a retard that is intentionally misusing the word
What the fuck are you talking about? >>96243546 said everything. Wanting to fuck Megan Fox is a fantasy, retard.
Anonymous No.96243591
>>96243509
“ree wonderfag reeee”
Anonymous No.96243597 >>96243605
>>96243579
I'd say there's still just enough differences in expectations regarding the labels of fantasy and science fiction that it's fine to keep them separate if the writer wants to do that. Absolutely nothing says you can't have elves and orcs in space or make elves into physicists and orcs into industrialists, but some labels are useful in giving prospective readers at least some expectations to set themselves up for when going into the story blind.

>>96243584
So you are being a smug retard, got it.
Anonymous No.96243601 >>96243620
>>96243509
They get angry and accuse you of being a le smarty farty pants because of “ackchyually” type posters like >>96243330
Anonymous No.96243605 >>96243612 >>96244532
>>96243597
>I'd say there's still just enough differences
Not really. The stereotypical mad scientist is pretty much indistinguishable from the stereotypical classical wizard. “No sense of right and wrong”, “it’s not a matter of could, but should”, “sweet, man-made horrors beyond my comprehension”, etc.

They may look different, and use different words, but they aren’t really. They’re both poking at mysteries and dabbling in the unknown.
Anonymous No.96243612 >>96243629 >>96261820
>>96243605
>The stereotypical mad scientist is pretty much indistinguishable from the stereotypical classical wizard
Anonymous No.96243615 >>96243629
>>96243584
>No I’m just using words wrong
ftfy
Anonymous No.96243620 >>96244532
>>96243601
So they’re just mad and pissy because they got checked/educated. Got it. They need to grow the fuck up.
Anonymous No.96243629 >>96243642
>>96243612
Nah, it’s the opinion of history.
>>96243615
You’re not very smart. Sad!
Anonymous No.96243634
>>96241232
This is infuriatingly well observed.
Anonymous No.96243642 >>96244049
>>96243629
Sorry anon, you're in fact a moron
Anonymous No.96243785
>>96240712 (OP)
>conjuring fireballs
That's a bad example, because pyrokinesis is a stock psionic power, and even Star Wars has Force Lightning.
Anonymous No.96243791
>>96243553
>book categorizations
From a literary perspective, separating speculative fiction into two categories is extra retarded. Science fiction stories have more in common with Sword and Sorcery stories than Sword and Sorcery stories have with Romantasy slop.
Anonymous No.96243892 >>96244054 >>96244174
ATTENTION ATTENTION
THE "LE MAGIC IS... LE SCIENCE?" NIGGER IS AT IT AGAIN
DO NOT INTERACT
DO NOT RESPOND
DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN POINTLESS SEMANTIC ARGUMENT FOR THE 100TH TIME
Anonymous No.96244049 >>96244057
>>96243642
>knowing history is being an idiot
So true, anon. You’re such a sage.
Anonymous No.96244054 >>96244369 >>96244532 >>96244600
>>96243892
How do you even separate magic from science if it works? Goddamn, you guys are so fucking cooked in the head LMAO.
Anonymous No.96244057
>>96244049
>sage
That's just what I'll do to this thread then
Anonymous No.96244174 >>96245283
>>96243892
It's the guy who said Ghost in the Shell and most cyberpunk should be labeled as fantasy I'm sure
Anonymous No.96244369
>>96244054
Easily.
Anonymous No.96244532 >>96244600
>>96240712 (OP)
It's a technically retro-futuristic holdover from the early days of the genre when people were trying to prove and optimize Victorian occultism with science. Not actually sure why it shrunk to telekinesis and mind-reading/controlling, the early "extrasensory powers" stuff went really damned weird.

>>96243509
To quote who you're demeaning:
>They cant understand the differences, whether by true retardation or simply an inability to grasp nuance, so they shrink it all down into a single word with an idiosyncratic definition that rejects how the words are used by the vast majority of people.
As definitions are descriptive, the common use being to highlight the differences actively makes you wrong.

>>96243584
For language to communicate particular concepts words must have particular meanings. Re-defining at odds with common usage foils this, and so you are simply wrong.

>>96243605
They're easily distinguishable in genre fiction terms because the trappings you dismiss as irrelevant call on different biases and different questions of man's limits, to say nothing of those works that use "mad scientist" correctly with efforts at actual research methodologies. It's easy to dismiss the details when you're a totalizing midwit, I suppose.

>>96243620
Equivocating "spellcasters" with "magic" to shift to a non-sequitur is not an education, it's a demonstration of a void of reading comprehension.

>>96244054
The epistemological history that made science an exceptionally effective method of inquiry?
Anonymous No.96244600 >>96244603
>>96244054
Kill yourself.
>>96244532
Kill yourself.
Anonymous No.96244603
>>96244600
Take your own advice
Anonymous No.96244753 >>96245417
>>96243509
You are prolific and retarded. You are clearly a troll or so autistically sure in your limited intelligence that you may as well be a troll.
Anonymous No.96244850 >>96244919
>>96241181
spbp
Old folkloric ideas of magic separated into the fantasy genre, and the more pseudo scientific new age stuff got into sci-fi and the modern cultural canon just regurgitates it.
Anonymous No.96244919
>>96241181
>>96244850
The thread derailed into some nonsense over definitions, these are right.
The human brain used to be considered a final frontier next to space. And it still kinda is. The idea that we only use a fraction of our brain power. Except back then, part of this involved ESP and the like, it was never fully accepted but considered worth looking into enough for several governments to throw money into researching it for warfare and espionage. It's why Scientology started off as an attempt to accepted under psychology, before Hubbard realized you could get more money by pretending to be a religion. And it's why it became part of sci-fi during the genre's formative years. A lot of science that gets debunked and fails ends up becoming part of the new age and esoteric.
Besides the obvious reason why it fell out of fashion, there's an interesting theory that it became less common in sci-fi after the rise of cybernetics in fiction. It does similar stuff like telepathy and hacking into people's brains.
Anyways I fucking love ESP in sci-fi. I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed in it. Even if it's just "magic", some of the best sci-fi have metaphysical angles to their plots/settings/themes.
Anonymous No.96244955
>>96240712 (OP)
Kinda, yeah.
Reading minds is barely outside of real life, neuroscience is based on the premise that we might somehow do that.
Moving things is unreal, but just moving shit with an invisible force could be a thing without breaking too much.
Creating matter or energy out of nowhere with no side effect on anything besides your very specific intended use is absurd and would break any economy. Even Avatar had an industrial revolution sustained on the people who create fire out of nowhere being living coal in factories. It implies too much stuff if we take a world that could exist and add something that breaks everything we do, it wouldn't be the same world unless it's a new development or you just say fuck it and make it clear it doesn't matter and it's just a game. I don't mind the latter, but it's a very specific flavor for a more niche audience than scifi with small impossible shit.
Anonymous No.96244978 >>96245333
>>96243509
genres exist to direct the consumer.
If you really liked Lord of the Rings and want more like that it makes more sense to go towards Princess Bride than Blade Runner.
If you feel that Alien and Hawk the Slayer give the same watching experience and share the exact same audience then yeah, go on saying it's the same genre. You are being retarded tho.

>but on a conceptual way
Genres aren't about concepts, they're about grouping similar experiences. They don't even need to make sense as individual works if they share an audience.
Anonymous No.96245058
>>96241255
>Magic, by definition, violates natural law.
The definition of magic is simply the influencing of events through beliefs, rituals, or other actions intended to either intercede with spiritual or otherworldly entities or effect change through spiritual or otherworldly channels. It does not involve the violation of natural law in a belief structure that holds those spiritual or otherworldly beliefs to be part of the natural order.
Anonymous No.96245283 >>96245320 >>96245825 >>96245870
>>96244174
Tell us how they're not products of imagining impossible or improbable things.
Anonymous No.96245320 >>96256532
>>96245283
That is not what the word "fantasy" means in the context of genre fiction. You seem to have a hard time with that concept.
Anonymous No.96245333 >>96245592
>>96244978
>If you really liked Lord of the Rings and want more like that it makes more sense to go towards Princess Bride than Blade Runner.
That's retarded, they're an epic, a noire, and a picaresque comedy, they have nothing to do with each other.
Anonymous No.96245412
>nooo- magic can be separate from science noooooo-
Cope, lmao; even wonky ass magic that’s practically a living thing is still subject to nature, physics, etc
Anonymous No.96245417 >>96245582
>>96244753
Someone pointing out that Vulcans are essentially space elves isn’t being a troll, it’s just being observant.
Anonymous No.96245582 >>96246453
>>96245417
There's also a time and place for everything, and while the occasional direct comparisons are fair game for the sake of discussion, repeatedly referring to Vulcans as "space elves" just because you can shows an outright refusal to engage with the setting on its own terms and is an active hindrance to discussion. Particularly because Vulcans have a notable amount of traits that separate them from both mythological fey and numerous depictions of elves in fantasy literature, such as an adherence to human-based logic and reason, emotional detachment, and telepathic powers.

You think you're making the discussion broader by trying to smush different genres and conventions together, when you're really just being reductive and muddying the waters unnecessarily by trying to force everything into a generalized slush. Dismissing a Klingon as another example of "space orc" doesn't elevate either concept, it diminishes both.

Or tl;dr Quit being a pedantic faggot about this shit, you're not being observant, you're just being willingly obtuse and annoying
Anonymous No.96245592 >>96252185
>>96245333
apparently they're all fanasy so if you go to the fantasy section they might be one next to the other because they are the same.
And if you want to get anal, BR is neo-noir because it reinterprets how noir aspired to be instead of directly imitating it.
Wonk No.96245651 >>96247606
I think aliens would treat that shit as Advanced Psionics because when you break it down Magic is Psionic in Nature and it's why when settings like Dark Sun Happen where Magic gets BTFO'd You're left with a large swathe of individuals who can reach out into the ether but there's not really something there for them to grab onto.
Walk with me on this because you have Science-Fantasy Series like Starwars.
In that series they have an order of monks that are trained in the ways of using their minds to empart their will onto the physical realm using a source of ambient energy that coexists between all living things. The Basics of this ability are basically using your mind to excite atoms in the air to do shit like, become as hard as a wall and push someone back, or to act like propulsion and letting you jump really good. then there are people who use their emotions to tap into the force and will it to do funny shit with casting Lightning to be the most simple in a long line of shit you can do. Mind you You can use the force like Darth Nihilus. The issue I believe stems from Scientific Classification and Notation that would Essentaily put those who can USE magic into the camp of weirdos with Psionics.
The fucked up bit is that when you get to classifications of what arcane, divine, and nature magic are, and that's a pretty interesting discussional rabbithole.
Anonymous No.96245825 >>96255651 >>96256096 >>96256539
>>96245283
Is Family Guy a fantasy series
Anonymous No.96245870 >>96245931 >>96245952 >>96245979 >>96246457 >>96256542 >>96258920
>>96245283
Fantasy explores fantastical, fictional worlds. Science fiction explores "how would X principle, discovery or technology change our world?" They're fairly easy to dileneate. However, ultimately, they're descriptive, not proscriptive. Something being fantasy or scifi doesn't determine what an author is or isn't allowed to write. You're wrong that they're the same thing.

Is it just one guy on /tg/ who constantly spams "fantasy and sci-fi are the same!" or is this some idiot meme?
Anonymous No.96245931 >>96245982
>>96245870
>is this some idiot meme?
I don't know where it started if it even has an origin point, but in the late 00's it was something some people kept pushing even irl with a straight face as if they weren't basically saying
>this two things everyone can see are different are actually the same
>the way we refer to them should make it harder to identify them
Anonymous No.96245952 >>96245982
>>96245870
>Is it just one guy on /tg/ who constantly spams "fantasy and sci-fi are the same!" or is this some idiot meme?
Far as I'm concerned, both, considering how many terminally bored people start copying spergs just cause they know it gets results
Anonymous No.96245979
>>96245870
>Is it just one guy on /tg/ who constantly spams "fantasy and sci-fi are the same!" or is this some idiot meme?
It absolutely is one guy for the most part
Anonymous No.96245982
>>96245931
>the way we refer to them should make it harder to identify them
It does seem to fundamentally misunderstand the entire usage and purpose of language. The different words exists specifically to differentiate things. And if you can't differentiate between the things, then you're obviously failing to grasp something that other people understand, in the usage of the words. Claiming that you want them to describe the same thing is just claiming that you want a smaller vocabulary. It's baffling.

>>96245952
>Far as I'm concerned, both, considering how many terminally bored people start copying spergs just cause they know it gets results
That's annoyingly likely.
Anonymous No.96246453 >>96246928 >>96247574
>>96245582
>There's also a time and place for everything
Translation: You're correct but I don't want to admit it right now because I'm too heated.
Anonymous No.96246457
>>96245870
Science Fiction explores fantastical, fictional worlds. Fantasy explores "How would X principle, discovery, or magic change our world?"
They're fairly easy to delineate* :^)
Anonymous No.96246928 >>96246954
>>96246453
Major mistranslation. Far too eager to claim victory to even tell where you went wrong, too.
Anonymous No.96246954 >>96246959
>>96246928
Translation: I think every person on /tg/ is the same and I'm mad.
Anonymous No.96246959
>>96246954
You do you, kid. You do you.
Anonymous No.96247574 >>96247641
>>96246453
That’s all he’s been doing. Someone told him magic is just psychology and he hasn’t got over it since.
Anonymous No.96247606
>>96245651
What the fuck is your point? The force in Star Wars is explained quite thoroughly and it's not what you said in your blog post.
Anonymous No.96247641 >>96247681
>>96247574
And which tabletop game is that the case, good sir?
Anonymous No.96247681 >>96247706
>>96247641
Human life.
Anonymous No.96247706 >>96247943
>>96247681
So not a tabletop game, and thus off-topic. Gotcha.
Anonymous No.96247725 >>96248058 >>96248232 >>96248237
This thread perfectly highlights what's wrong with world building threads. The thread question was answered in the first few posts, and got ignored afterwards, then we have two or three autists screaming at each other about about some off topic semantics bullshit that only exists in their heads and the rest of the thread are a bunch of low IQ idiots coming up with theories a grade schooler could do better based on assumptions they just made up and convinced themselves to be true.
Fuck you all...
Anonymous No.96247943 >>96247971
>>96247706
Nah. Life is a game.
Anonymous No.96247971
>>96247943
One you're losing posting in this shithole
Anonymous No.96248058 >>96248141 >>96248154 >>96248218 >>96248237 >>96263875
>>96247725
The problem is people hate the idea that magic is technology, even when there is literally no other justification for it. Even when 99.99% of magic systems in fiction are far too narratively convenient. Far too constructed. Really, REALLY think about it. Causality, evolution, is a blind idiot that won’t make entertain silly human religion or belief systems, including hocus pocus. So what is? What’s entertaining it? Magic requires an intelligence. Something being seen as magic requires an intelligence. It is a product of the mind’s eye.

Magic could be indistinguishable from nature and still it would be too convenient in regards to evolution. Technology is just applied nature/science. It implies intellect.
The parameters and variables in so many magic systems are far more advanced or considerate than plain old science fiction or nature would allow. Nature wouldn’t go entertaining shit like human sacrifice for better weather. It doesn’t give one fuck.
Anonymous No.96248141 >>96248210
>>96248058
You know that it's totally fine if someone writes a story where magic and modern technology never intermingle, right?
Anonymous No.96248154
>>96248058
Now what the hell are you talking about? You sure you're replying to the correct comment?
Anonymous No.96248210 >>96248232
>>96248141
Then something or someone is reinforcing such an ignorant perception. That’s fine. All magic is a veil, or some curtain of ignorance, and if things like mystery and wonder and horror make magic, then ignorance is the greatest magic of all.

I say this because even before Jesus the ancient world saw sophisticated devices, like those made by the Greeks, to be the stuff of wizards. The Greeks themselves saw higher knowledge as magic.
Anonymous No.96248218 >>96248244
>>96248058
>Really, REALLY think about it.
The rules of the setting are simply more convenient. That is all that need be the case. You keep inserting particulars of real-life physics into an area where it explicitly need not apply, and often is explicitly contradicted.

>Causality, evolution, is a blind idiot that won’t make entertain silly human religion or belief systems, including hocus pocus.
I fail to see the relevance of causality and a great many of these settings are overtly creationist where the religion is correctly describing phenomena and history so evolution as a source of living things' abilities just doesn't apply.

>So what is? What’s entertaining it?
There doesn't need to be anything entertaining it for it to meet one of the many particular definitions describing an objective criterion.

>Something being seen as magic requires an intelligence. It is a product of the mind’s eye.
In your totalizing midwit obsession with a specific sociology jargon meaning of the word. To those of us with functional literacy, we can understand that it has many meanings distinguishable by context rather than being a "whatever the fuck".

>Magic could be indistinguishable from nature and still it would be too convenient in regards to evolution.
Again, the rules of the setting are simply more convenient and evolution need not apply.

>The parameters and variables in so many magic systems are far more advanced or considerate than plain old science fiction or nature would allow.
The handwavy-ness is a rather major aspect of it separating from speculative science fiction, yes. This does not demand that there is some higher power actively doing it inside the setting's context.

>Nature wouldn’t go entertaining shit like human sacrifice for better weather. It doesn’t give one fuck.
Your understanding of it, perhaps. Again, many fantasy settings explicitly dictate otherwise with things like deontological ethics serving as objective cosmic forces.
Anonymous No.96248232
>>96248210
Anon, please take your meds. Or go bother /x/ instead. Cause >>96247725 is right, you're not contributing anything to this discussion as it is.
Anonymous No.96248237 >>96248252
>>96248058
Funny you chose to reply to this post, when you're a prime example for
>>96247725
>low IQ idiots coming up with theories a grade schooler could do better based on assumptions they just made up and convinced themselves to be true.
Anonymous No.96248244 >>96248293
>>96248218
Sorry, I’m not responding to you anymore. You’re insane or something. The way you respond to people is schizophrenic and you don’t even know what science is. You are not my argumentative equal.
Anonymous No.96248252 >>96248268 >>96248286
>>96248237
Anon. Something either comes about intelligently or unintelligently. There is no third alternative. At best something intelligent can nudge something unintelligent, or vice versa. This is basic binary logic.
Anonymous No.96248268 >>96248281
>>96248252
Dunning-Kruger effect
Anonymous No.96248281
>>96248268
Yep, you’ve got it.
Anonymous No.96248286
>>96248252
Again not the point of the post you're replying to.
Jesus, chatbots of the early 2000s were better at having coherent conversations.
Anonymous No.96248293 >>96248303
>>96248244
>The way you respond to people is schizophrenic
Quoting the specific statement each line is referring to is "schizophrenic" to you? No wonder you keep being Not Even Wrong if you don't understand what value this has to reasoning.

>and you don’t even know what science is
That's you, bloating it wildly outside the bounds of what actually works.

>You are not my argumentative equal.
Correct, I'm far your superior because I can actually recognize the context of the discussion and that semantic ambiguity can be resolved by contextual definitions.
Anonymous No.96248295
“Religion is just a fictional story you say? Made up by intelligent lifeforms? Heh. That’s grade school logic kid. Grow up. Take off that fedora.”

You act like there’s any better, or more logical, alternative.
Anonymous No.96248303 >>96248310 >>96248488
>>96248293
>That's you, bloating it wildly outside the bounds of what actually works
If you think science is just a one sided method to apply, rather than information lying in wait, then you’re sadly an idiot.
Anonymous No.96248310 >>96248332
>>96248303
Find me this definition in literally any dictionary.
Anonymous No.96248332 >>96248402 >>96248488
>>96248310
I just go by the assumption that fire was hot before there was any life around to be burnt by it. :^)
Anonymous No.96248402 >>96248466
>>96248332
Invalid, definitions are only prescriptive in clearly-defined and narrowly-applied jargon. The common use per my own experience as reflected in every dictionary I've seen focuses on the methodology, and to explain said methodology to continue acquiring information accurately and quickly the process must be distinguished from less accurate and expedient processes as well as the result of itself.

Common terms like "scientific theory" become nonsensical redundancies under your re-definition, whereas by the one I am using their intended meaning is described with ease.
Anonymous No.96248466 >>96248488 >>96248567
>>96248402
You’re starting to sound like a “fire is only hot if I experience it as hot” like some sort of probabilistic cunt. Do you think that the moon is only there when you look at it? You hate determinism or something. You hate dominoes.
Anonymous No.96248488 >>96251188
>>96248303
>>96248332
>>96248466
I hate to ask, but what game are you even talking about? Or are you just wasting your time?
Anonymous No.96248567
>>96248466
>You’re starting to sound like a “fire is only hot if I experience it as hot” like some sort of probabilistic cunt.
No, I'm just trying to get you to cite a dictionary for your totalizing midwitery to show that it's something other than your sinkhole of a mind swirling the drain of the first few neat ideas you ever encountered.

>Do you think that the moon is only there when you look at it? You hate determinism or something. You hate dominoes.
The ability to engage with the hypothetical where the contrary to one's own opinion is true is a prerequisite to actual higher logic and understanding much of fiction.
Anonymous No.96251188 >>96251400 >>96251478
>>96248488
For the sake of other people, I hope that guy never had a game. The guy still arguing with him too, it takes some profound retardation to try and convince an actual schizophrenic.
Anonymous No.96251230
>>96240712 (OP)
>In a setting with aliens and highly advanced tech, would conjuring fireballs and hailstorms really be out of place?
No, because those are all fantasy concepts. "Sci-fi" has no distinction from fantasy.
Anonymous No.96251400
>>96251188
>The guy still arguing with him too, it takes some profound retardation to try and convince an actual schizophrenic.
Only diagnosis is autism, which suffices plenty well enough to explain the relentless fixation.
Anonymous No.96251478
>>96251188
For the sake of other people, and him, I hope that he eventually gets banned from 4chan and puts his autism to good use.

Maybe the same for the guy still arguing with him, cause he may be slilghtly less retarded but he's objectively wasting his time trying to argue this troll to some semblance of human intelligence.
Anonymous No.96251854 >>96251875 >>96251893 >>96255003 >>96255892 >>96262079
Magic is wonder. Mystery. Enchantment.

If you want a wizard in your science fiction setting just throw in some scientist poking at the unknown, or some mad scientist creating horrors beyond your comprehension, or some alien sage, etc.

It’s really that simple, but, inb4 “shut up wonderfag”.
Anonymous No.96251875 >>96252042
>>96251854
>Magic is wonder. Mystery. Enchantment.
Only in the adverb use-case. It is aggressively dysfunctional with the predominant noun usage of the word.
Anonymous No.96251893 >>96252042
>>96251854
>but, inb4 “shut up wonderfag”.
If you already knew what people were going to say in response, that should tell you you're pretty unwanted for a reason

>Magic is wonder. Mystery. Enchantment.
That sounds gay, and not even a cool kind of gay like Freddie Mercury
Anonymous No.96252042 >>96252183 >>96255111
>>96251875
Nah. It’s literally the recipe for religion and such. All religion has, and stems from, mysticism. It all starts from stage magic logic, lmao.

>>96251893
Oh blow it out your ass pal.
Anonymous No.96252183
>>96252042
>Nah. It’s literally the recipe for religion and such. All religion has, and stems from, mysticism. It all starts from stage magic logic, lmao.
Which does not change the resulting grammatical errors and is irrelevant inside the Elfgame settings where the present religion and mysticism is simply correct.
Anonymous No.96252185
>>96245592
> if you go to the fantasy section they might be one next to the other because they are the same
My local library does exactly that and nobody has ever complained.
Anonymous No.96255003
>>96251854
They hated him because he spoke the truth
Anonymous No.96255024
I have been homebrewing a setting that was very futuristic until some kind of EVENT happed that caused the world the to fall apart but also magic to come into existence. so the current setting is a post apocalyptic with people surviving on old advance tech and magic
Anonymous No.96255095
>>96241255
>Magic, by definition, violates natural law.
I'm on your side, I oppose the notion that magic is just science. But you are not making a good argument there because there are limits to what mortals can know or understand. About natural law or whatever.
Anonymous No.96255111
>>96252042
Shut up wonderfag
Anonymous No.96255651 >>96256096
>>96245825
Someone answer this NOW
Anonymous No.96255892 >>96256287
>>96251854
Not the thread question, moron. But hey, seems like no one gives a fuck, so you'll fit right in with the other sub 80 IQs.
Anonymous No.96255960
>>96240712 (OP)
Because aesthetics matter.
Which something semanticsfags arguing ITT can't comprehend.
Anonymous No.96256096 >>96256111 >>96262820
>>96245825
>>96255651
Yes
Anonymous No.96256111 >>96256480 >>96256600
>>96256096
You're making a joke about the Star Wars parodies and how Star Wars is sci-fantasy.
But is Peter fighting the giant chicken or Stewie making shooting Lois, do those qualify Family Guy as being fantasy, and should be placed right next to DVD's of LotR or Conan
Anonymous No.96256287 >>96256292 >>96256313 >>96256471
>>96255892
Nah, it’s quite related. If you think magic is just superpowers then you’re kind of a faggot.
Anonymous No.96256292 >>96256313
>>96256287
This still isn't /x/ wonderfag
Anonymous No.96256313
>>96256287
>>96256292
Stop samefagging
Anonymous No.96256471
>>96256287
>How come sci-fi systems with supernatural powers tend to stay within the realm of telekinesis or psionics?
It's a precise question. No one asked for your blog post, el retardo.
Anonymous No.96256480 >>96256923
>>96256111
Speak english, idiot.
Anonymous No.96256532
>>96245320
>he couldn't tell us
Too bad.
Anonymous No.96256539
>>96245825
>he couldn't tell us either
Dang.
Anonymous No.96256542
>>96245870
>yet another who had to jump in, yet couldn't actually answer
You guys suck.
Anonymous No.96256600 >>96256923
>>96256111
>should be placed right next to DVD's of LotR or Conan
I didn't realize those were cartoons and comedies.
Anonymous No.96256903
>At the risk of starting another flame war, they are mostly the same thing. It’s why “speculative fiction” even became a thing. Fantasy and science fiction both define themselves by asking “what if” and telling a story from there. “What if spaceships and robots?” is not, fundamentally speaking, much different from “What if elves and orcs?”. Both genres are stepping outside of standard reality, in which a series of events occur.
/thread
Anonymous No.96256923 >>96256955
>>96256480
You can read it, retard.
>>96256600
And so can you, don't dodge the point
Anonymous No.96256955 >>96262079
>>96256923
>don't dodge the point
You don't have a point but a random string of words.
Anonymous No.96258281
There are two kinds of people. People who hate seeing how everything meets in the end, and those who enjoy it.
Anonymous No.96258588
>>96240712 (OP)
Actual magic magic, with arcane trappings like ritual circles, chants & incantations, sympathetic magic, etc, never works in sci fi. Star Wars style "magic" however, does, it's a skill that lets someone use mental control over an exterior energy.
Anonymous No.96258920 >>96258975 >>96259105
>>96245870
>Fantasy explores fantastical, fictional worlds.
Okay.
Worlds that have impossible/highly improbable aspects would be fantastical.
Namely, worlds that have faster-than-light travel, humanoid aliens with compatible breeding biology and societal constructs ("like humans but-"), destructive emitted light that tapers off like a blade, anything in violation of the squared-cubed law (or of other laws of physics), transferable consciousness; you get the idea.
Looks like all those works of "sci-fi" explore fantastical worlds, and you said fantasy explores fantastical worlds, so "sci-fi" is fantasy.
Anonymous No.96258975
>>96258920
Stop with the fucking equivocation already. What do you even gain from this?
Anonymous No.96259105 >>96261594
>>96258920
>Worlds that have impossible/highly improbable aspects would be fantastical.
Nope. What I said was what I said. You can tell that what you said isn't the same thing by reading it.
Anonymous No.96261335 >>96261529
>>96240712 (OP)
Because serious scientists used to believe that psychic phenomenon might be real in the mid-to-late 20th Century. That's why "hard" SF authors like Larry Niven included it in their settings.

>>96241288
Magic should obey the laws of physics/thermodynamics. I really like the teleportation rules in Traveller where you need to pay for any difference in gravitational potential energy or rotational kinetic energy gained/lost via teleportation out of your body heat, which can easily kill you.

>>96241458
Based cause-and-effect appreciator.

>>96241473
Wizards are just scientists/engineers/technicians in settings where magic is real. The "mad scientist" trope is just a rehash of the ancient "evil sorcerer" trope. Prove me wrong.
Anonymous No.96261529 >>96273585
>>96261335
>Magic should obey the laws of physics/thermodynamics.

I agree. When it doesn't, it should be something PCs should never have access to.
Anonymous No.96261594
>>96259105
Tell us all about how the "like humans but" aliens and faster-than-light actually exists, then.
I'm sure lots of people would love to know those things are actually real.
Anonymous No.96261820 >>96261899
>>96243612
Yes.
Anonymous No.96261869 >>96263508 >>96263554
>>96241255
If an alien shows up to your house and teleports you to Mars, that looks like magic. In the same way that you showing a lighter to a caveman looks like magic.
If the technology is sufficiently advanced, then someone observing it won't be able to distinguish it from magic, because they won't be able to explain how it works at all. If whoever showed it to them claimed it was proof of magic, they wouldn't be able to falsify the claim.

That's what the quote means. Especially in the context of sci-fi technobabble.
Anonymous No.96261899
>>96261820
And his opinion is stupid, yes
Anonymous No.96262072
I like how if you're late to a thread, you can never talk about psionics and ESP and how it's cool in sci-fi, because the thread already became the same arguments with the same fucking faggot spouting the same fucking arguments and becoming some "sci-fi=fantasy????" thread instead
Anonymous No.96262079 >>96262122 >>96262820
>>96256955
>You don't have a point but a random string of words.
So right up the alley of >>96251854
Family Guy is a fantasy series akin to Lord of the Rings. No one should complain about it being classified as the same genre. Same for Simpsons, hell, Ren & Stimpy too. All fantasy.
Anonymous No.96262122 >>96263517 >>96263532 >>96263839
>>96262079
False. Because “fantasy” in the context of that example is about the focus of the content. And Family Guy, Simpsons, and Ren and Stimpy are focused on portraying humor with the use of cartoon characters, not on anything resembling speculative fiction. Cause otherwise, if the world was as retarded as you, every single work of media that is fictitious to any degree would be “the same” and thus useless to categorize, since that would be like saying because Murder on the Orient Express isn’t real that it’s a “fantasy” and not a mystery story. You can’t keep equivocating your words and then act shocked every pope treats you like a fucking retard.
Anonymous No.96262820
>>96262079
Dude, >>96256096 is just an obvious shitpost.
Anonymous No.96263508
>>96261869
“Yeah but what if magic wasn’t sufficiently advanced technology huh HUH??”
Anonymous No.96263517 >>96263521
>>96262122
You are retarded. Hm.
Anonymous No.96263521
>>96263517
Yes, you are
Anonymous No.96263532 >>96263539
>>96262122
>Cause otherwise, if the world was as retarded as you, every single work of media that is fictitious to any degree would be “the same” and thus useless to categorize

Um. No. That’s just you being obsessed with putting everything into neatly packaged little boxes. Some people see how it all overlaps. Science fiction being a shade of fantasy doesn’t prevent one from noticing the surface. You’re so obsessed with the superficial paint that you can’t see the object that’s been painted.
Anonymous No.96263539
>>96263532
It's hilarious how you keep projecting your own flaws onto others, anon
Anonymous No.96263554 >>96263754 >>96265195
>>96261869
If an alien showed me a device like pic rel, us being 21st century humans, it would certainly look "magical" but we would recognize that it's probably some advanced tech that would be very difficult or even impossible to grasp the mechanics of. I think that's still way different than if an alien shows you they can transform into a different looking creature, breathe fire, fly without any obvious device or eldritch technology that we can see. A lot of the fantasy depictions we know about magic portrays it as purely coming from some kind of invisible energy source/weave/mana
Anonymous No.96263711
Scifi is about current worries extrapolated to an absurd degree, fantasy is about traditional ideas altered so an artifical core concept remains. I have no clue how you'd think they are the same. For what I read itt you just poorly define things in a way you make them sound similar even if it doesn't sound like a definition anyone would use. Please get help if you sincerely think that is a solid argument.

>skin is an organ
>so a dermatologist should be able to treat lungs
Anonymous No.96263754 >>96263827 >>96264318
>>96263554
That’s magic to the 21st century man, who isn’t retarded, magic is literally just “magic” in the proxy sense. Stage magic logic. “How did he do that?”. Ignorance is powerful when the magician fools men in to believing something that it isn’t.

But stop a candy bar wrapper a thousand years into the past and it may or may not start a cult.

>I think that's still way different than if an alien shows you they can transform into a different looking creature, breathe fire, fly without any obvious device or eldritch technology that we can see.
As another said, if you can’t see where the conservation of mass is going, then it’s probably higher dimensional to make up for the lack of violent energy releases. It may not even be magic to that creature if they’re all capable of doing it. Like how the elves in lord of the rings don’t view or understand their works as magic.
>A lot of the fantasy depictions we know about magic portrays it as purely coming from some kind of invisible energy source/weave/mana
Yes. The implications are horrifying. It’s more advanced than anything in typical science fiction which usually takes place in three dimensions.

It’s like “solidified shadows”, or “solidified darkness”, and darkness isn’t anything but the absence of light. So… what is it really? What’s IN there making it “solid”?

The implications of physics makes magic all the more magical, or horrifying. We’re not even going into talks of how magic in history played out, which was usually the realm of lethal coincidence, circumstance that kills, etc. The ability to take out your enemy, anonymously, from the safety of your basement a thousand miles away, is a lot more terrifying than any sniper could ever hope to be. If you can dominate the mind from that distance, it’s even worse.

The ability to manipulate man - the thing that drops nuclear bombs - is terrifying.
Anonymous No.96263827
>>96263754
Are you this guy >>96248095
Anonymous No.96263839 >>96263853
>>96262122
>And Family Guy, Simpsons, and Ren and Stimpy are focused on portraying humor with the use of cartoon characters
Yeah, they're animated comedies within the realm of fantasy. One could argue that since The Simpsons is more plausible than the others, and would fit more towards base fiction rather than being outright fantastical.

>Murder on the Orient Express
That's a work of fiction with reasonable plausibility. Did you know there's a difference between plausibility and the impossible/improbable? Because I don't think you do.

It's easier than taking a piss to have three master genres; nonfiction (facts), fiction (includes plausible falsehoods/embellishments), and fantasy (includes aspects of impossibility), then have your subgenres of each whether it's autobiographies, geography, history, etc for nonfiction, and have your futurism, horror, mystery, etc for fiction and fantasy.
You just don't want to admit the millions of suckers across multiple generations who fell for the sci-fi grift are wrong, much like the billions of alcoholics who've lived can't admit they have a problem.
The cordyceps convinces its host there's nothing wrong.
Anonymous No.96263853
>>96263839
>blah blah blah
No, I'm pretty sure you're operating with a definition of fantasy that doesn't actually fit the context of the conversation, so this isn't even worth discussing
Anonymous No.96263858 >>96263875
>>96240973
You're not as clever as you think you are by bleating that.
Anonymous No.96263875 >>96263882 >>96263922 >>96264318
>>96263858
It doesn't take a smart person to see how correct it is. Only dumb people see it as incorrect. For reasons everything >>96248058 said
Anonymous No.96263882 >>96263895
>>96263875
Praising yourself isn't very intellectual, anon
Anonymous No.96263895 >>96263972
>>96263882
>he thinks I'm praising myself
Anon, no. You appear to have self-esteem issues if you think this.
Anonymous No.96263922 >>96263931
>>96263875
Not really. You can have sufficiently advanced technology AND magic in the same setting. FTL may as well be magic, but then you can also have a sorcerer that operates on different rules entirely
Anonymous No.96263931 >>96263982 >>96264001 >>96264318
>>96263922
>You can have sufficiently advanced technology AND magic in the same setting
Literally the same thing. It's all facets of physics. Call some glowing blue goo "magic" doesn't prevent the neighboring planet from calling their glowing green goo "magic", even if they're both completely different and both do completely different things.
Anonymous No.96263972
>>96263895
>projecting
lol
Anonymous No.96263982 >>96264241
>>96263931
>i-it's just different tech trees/different names for the same thing!
What a predictable, stupid response.
Anonymous No.96264001 >>96264122 >>96264353 >>96264380
>>96263931
in the same sense that miracles are magic, yes.
But people don't treat miracles and stage magic as the same thing, conceptually they are very different. One is a demonstration of faith being true and the other one is entertainment. Similarly, scifi is about the mind progressing and fantasy is about themes affecting reality. You can mix and match, but as genres they are very different experiences.
Anonymous No.96264122
>>96264001
Sadly, that troll is a bit too retarded to grasp that
Anonymous No.96264241 >>96264422
>>96263982
Does it make your butt sore because of how true it is?
Anonymous No.96264318 >>96264471
>>96263754
>As another said, if you can’t see where the conservation of mass is going, then it’s probably higher dimensional to make up for the lack of violent energy releases.
And as has been countered REPEATEDLY, conservation laws are very far from what fiction is bound to. Stop insisting on beating the square peg of counterfactual magic into the round hole of science as we know it.

>It’s like “solidified shadows”, or “solidified darkness”, and darkness isn’t anything but the absence of light. So… what is it really? What’s IN there making it “solid”?
Counterfactual bullshit. It explicitly violating your worldview is no issue, because it is perfectly logically valid at the lower levels dictating whether or not the fiction is INTERNALLY coherent. It is in no way bound to be coherent with our laws of physics, with no few works being quite explicit in their premise being a violation.

>>96263875
It takes a totalizing midwit to assert that "indistinguishable from" means "it's totally the same in all circumstances".

>>96263931
Not if you use a definition of "physics" particular enough to have an out-group for all the things that were widely believed but eventually disproven; then, it's a simple matter of declaring some of those disproven things true in the counterfactual for a "magic" outside "physics".
Anonymous No.96264353 >>96264386 >>96264389 >>96264418
>>96264001
>in the same sense that miracles are magic, yes.
Yes. Most religions globally didn’t actually distinguish between magic and miracles. It was all the same shit. Heretical taboo workings was lumped in with the word magic, to the Christians, and pejoratives like sorcery, witchcraft, etc, were quickly associated with magic as a whole. Jews and Greeks didn’t distinguish the feats of Moses from magic, since magician often doubled as priests, like the Persian Magi, who were learned astrologer-priests, and this later led to the Greeks associating all forms of higher learning with magic, that replaced older more superstitious views.

You’ll notice that there’s an inseparable connection between magic, religion and science.
Anonymous No.96264380 >>96264425 >>96264428
>>96264001
>You can mix and match, but as genres they are very different experiences.
I think he’s saying that such experiences are based on superficial appearances, to the point where the themes and concepts they embody can be found in different or even radically different forms, or shapes, in this case genres. The scientist, wizard and priest share essences. Like how the Vulcans in Star Trek are essentially just a space elf.
Anonymous No.96264386
>>96264353
>You’ll notice that there’s an inseparable connection between magic, religion and science.
Always has been.
Anonymous No.96264389 >>96265249
>>96264353
I just told you, yes, they are the same thing but we distinguish because there is a conceptual difference that turns them into things used for different things.
You know what else can be explained with physics? Chemistry, and chemistry can be used to understand biology, and biology is how we understand health. So next time instead of going to a doctor go to a physicist since they are the same thing.
Anonymous No.96264418 >>96264430
>>96264353
...Which doesn't mean diddley dick for the majority of games which make them all different aspects so that the game master and the players can determine what religions are "correct" in the context of the game as well as what aspects of real-life understanding of the laws of nature are being selectively ignored to allow for the supernatural to be possible, rather than stuff them all into the same single box that makes for a huge waste of time trying to determine what does and doesn't go for their particular game.

Which you'd know if you weren't a nogaems loser.
Anonymous No.96264422
>>96264241
It's really not unless you redefine technology so loosely that electric eels are also "using technology" when they shock something. But nice try, lil bro, maybe you can quote someone else and try to feel smart again.
Anonymous No.96264425
>>96264380
He is sort of saying that, the issue here is that the similarity is the superficial part while the difference is the actual depth. Superficially vulcans are kinda like Tolkien elves, it's true. Vulcans are used for stories about human improvement and Tolkien used elves as a symbol of purer and simpler mythical times humans couldn't achieve. In a deeper sense they are opposites. But superficially yeah, they look and act similar, if you don't think about what's happening at all they are similar.
Anonymous No.96264428 >>96264460 >>96264510
>>96264380
>Like how the Vulcans in Star Trek are essentially just a space elf
So which episode was Spock driven off by waving a bar of cold iron at him?
Anonymous No.96264430 >>96264443
>>96264418
>Which you'd know if you weren't a nogaems loser.
I know you are but what am I
Anonymous No.96264443
>>96264430
Someone who can't name a game where this malarkey applies to save his life because he's never played any
Anonymous No.96264460 >>96264488
>>96264428
That’s a fairy not an elf you cute patootie you!
Anonymous No.96264471 >>96264555
>>96264318
>It takes a totalizing midwit to assert that "indistinguishable from" means "it's totally the same in all circumstances".
Not just that, but this dumbass is assuming every statement's converse is also true. The quote is that TECHNOLOGY is indistinguishable from MAGIC, not that MAGIC is indistinguishable from TECHNOLOGY. If we applied his logic to other common "fun facts" you get retarded shit like
>a square is a rectangle, therefore all rectangles are squares
>tomato is a fruit, therefore all fruits are tomatoes
Anonymous No.96264488 >>96264519
>>96264460
Fairies are a type of elf
Anonymous No.96264510
>>96264428
The sane one where he was summined back to his homeworld to bake cookies and make toys
Anonymous No.96264519
>>96264488
Don’t call me a fruit
Anonymous No.96264555 >>96264597 >>96264646 >>96265312
>>96264471
>MAGIC is indistinguishable from TECHNOLOGY
This is unavoidable. Magic in 99.99% of fiction is far too conveniently constructed for the sake of the narrative. Evolution is not going to entertain your imagination in such a way. Causality, evolution, the way of progression, is an overly sophisticated blind idiot, and I’ve told you this before. It isn’t going to respond to human sacrifice, since that requires something’s notice.
Anonymous No.96264591 >>96264597 >>96264646
They hated him because he had the trips of truth.
Anonymous No.96264597 >>96264992
>>96264555
>>96264591
Stop samefagging
Anonymous No.96264646 >>96264992
>>96264555
>>96264591
>n-nuh uh!
I accept your concession
Anonymous No.96264992 >>96265475
>>96264597
>>96264646
>pissing and shitting
Anonymous No.96265195 >>96265323 >>96265325
>>96263554
>I think that's still way different than if an alien shows you they can transform into a different looking creature, breathe fire, fly without any obvious device or eldritch technology that we can see.
Yeah, but if the alien tells you that he conjured 500 cigarettes with magic because he's trying to scam you, or that his shapeshifting is actually technology, you don't really have a way to call him out on it.

That's why it's 'indistinguishable'. You can make assumptions about one or the other based on what your 21st-century understanding says should or should not be scientifically possible, but there's no way of simply knowing at a glance.

>A lot of the fantasy depictions we know about magic portrays it as purely coming from some kind of invisible energy source/weave/mana
Exactly. Go back 200 years and explain a how wi-fi works, and it'll just sound like magic.
Anonymous No.96265249 >>96265322 >>96265455
>>96264389
>Chemistry, and chemistry can be used to understand biology, and biology is how we understand health. So next time instead of going to a doctor go to a physicist since they are the same thing.
Chemistry is a form of physics, like how biology is applied chemistry, and the psyche is applied chemistry. There’s chemistry in the brain. Yes. It’s all connected. Specialization isn’t the whole picture. A priest specializing in “miracles” doesn’t mean it’s not magic.
Anonymous No.96265312 >>96265333
>>96264555
In our world. Inside the context of the counterfactual fiction, evolution can be entirely inapplicable, the mechanisms of causality can differ, and the properties of "humans" can be trivially verified to include exotic side-products of recognizable biology that make human sacrifice a viable power source.
Anonymous No.96265322
>>96265249
>Specialization isn’t the whole picture.
Nor is generalization. You're insisting on blurring into nothing but the frame, losing any ability to discuss the fine details separating the connotations that separate the words.
Anonymous No.96265323
>>96265195
>Exactly. Go back 200 years and explain a how wi-fi works, and it'll just sound like magic.
Maybe go do that and stop being such an insufferable little twerp in the present day, if you're so certain of your pet theory
Anonymous No.96265325 >>96265343 >>96265349
>>96265195
>Yeah, but if the alien tells you that he conjured 500 cigarettes with magic because he's trying to scam you, or that his shapeshifting is actually technology, you don't really have a way to call him out on it.

This is what people don’t get. If you’re the only one in the world with [insert strange object that allows for strange feats here] then you can spin it whatever way you wish, and people will just nod.

It would probably be very easy for a sufficiently advanced alien to cosplay as God and convince even the hardcore atheists that he’s legit.

It’s like the ancients looking to the stars in the night sky, considering them gods. They just went wild with the imagination. Those stars will always be stars, but they can be interpreted any numbers of ways. Ignorance outnumbers truth, despite the truth reinforcing the imagination.

Tolkien knew this. It’s why Gandalf is the equivalent of an alien stage magician of sufficient capability. He knows things and can do things you cannot. It’s as simple as that. He doesn’t start cults or religion, or chalk it up to dark powers, like Sauron does. He makes blackpowder to create fireworks to inspire joy and laughter and wonder. Meanwhile Saruman makes use of blackpowder in bombs. Gandalf uses nature and psychology positively. Sauron and Saruman make use of it negatively. There’s a dark side to nature (the war machine) as there is a dark side to enchantment (ignorance leading to cults).
Anonymous No.96265333 >>96265343 >>96265378 >>96265475
>>96265312
>In our world
Nope. There are things even fiction can’t avoid, no matter how much the author is pissing and shitting.
Anonymous No.96265343 >>96265362 >>96265806
>>96265325
Are you even pretending to frame any of this in context to /traditional games/, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing, since I have yet to see any of this tripe actually discuss how it could actually be used for a proper tabletop game.

>>96265333
That just proves you either don't understand the concept of fiction, or you're just having a melty because someone actually dared to properly frame a discussion instead of letting you run them around in circles like a retard
Anonymous No.96265349 >>96265446
>>96265325
>It’s like the ancients looking to the stars in the night sky, considering them gods
This is probably the single best image or metaphor for magic. Belief, the stage, and nature, all in one. Existence is both stage and magician, and mystery is the beating heart of religion.

Religion is the precursor to science in observation-theory. Science/nature that we don’t understand is a curtain, a veil, or a black box—one that’s white within.
Anonymous No.96265362 >>96265383 >>96265433
>>96265343
Nah. It proves you can’t do hard logic if you think fiction isn’t derived from hard logic. I’m not even frustrated with you at this point. You’re a ye old escapist fag rotted on escapism, who thinks “it can be anything!”, and your refusal to grasp base logic is perhaps an indicator that you hate real life.
Anonymous No.96265378
>>96265333
Which does not include conservation of energy, monist cosmology, the entanglement of religion, math, and science, or sundry other notions you insist are without any actual argument for why.

It's vastly more basic things at very low orders of logic far removed from your "holistic approach" regarding avoidance of contradictions within itself. Because any specific example from outside the fiction is not relevant, as has been explained to you at length numerous times. And yet you keep trying to use them, so you are Not Even Wrong because your argument does not meet the basic prerequisites to apply enough to bother declaring false.
Anonymous No.96265383
>>96265362
I think it indicates that you're just so obsessed with winning your stupid arguments that you don't even know what you're arguing for or against at this point beyond a sense of satisfaction at "winning"
Anonymous No.96265433
>>96265362
Actual hard/higher logic relies heavily on being able to address contrary priors. You must demonstrate they create contradictions within the context established by said priors to dismiss them, and every attempt at such I can recall is pointing at things outside said context asserting your own priors.
Anonymous No.96265446
>>96265349
You are awfully full of yourself for someone so midwitted
Anonymous No.96265455
>>96265249
and yet you don't ask a chemist to check a bump in your balls.
In the regard of reductionism, police procedurals are also about phsycis. Guns shooting, analysing evidence, but none of it happened it's clearly the same genre as fantasy.
Anonymous No.96265475
>>96264992
>>96265333
>hates magic
>"quibbles" with Tolkien's world for being too fantastical
>obsessed with pissing and shitting
GRRM, is that you? Finish your slopseries and quit blaming Trump for your laziness, fatass.
Anonymous No.96265806 >>96265864 >>96265897 >>96266529
>>96265343
In the context of /traditional games/, it's even more indistinguishable, because it doesn't matter if you're shooting a gun or launching a bolt of magical force if the end result is just rolling dice and dealing damage to X targets in Y area.
Because in games, whether something is magic or advanced technology typically just boils down to flavor.
Anonymous No.96265827
>>96241600
Are you a moron anon ?
All the relevant physicists who actually earned their degree say every chance they get that nobody actually understands quantum physics.

In fact it is quite likely that at some point in the near future, actual, honest scientists come forth and admit that quantum bullshit was just marketing jargon maybe to cover something else.

Else relatively has been proven not to work.
Anonymous No.96265864 >>96266206
>>96265806
Jesus christ, that is the laziest attempt to justify this much off-topic shit, especially considering you think everything is "rolling dice and dealing damage"

>Because in games, whether something is magic or advanced technology typically just boils down to flavor
Yeah, I think that's proof you've never played a game where that's true, otherwise you'd have an actual example at the ready instead of a vague "in games".
Anonymous No.96265897
>>96265806
oh, so you don't play games
Anonymous No.96266033 >>96266170
>no fireballs or elementbending. At most you get lightning-kinesis because star wars does it
>everything else we're doing mind reading and telekinesis because that's scifi magic
>otherwise fuck off and play D&D
This is the only correct way to build your scifi game. If you're slinging fireballs we're no longer playing traveller, might as well just play D&D spelljammer or something
Anonymous No.96266170
>>96266033
Bending is cool, I think chi could be implemented in a sci-fi setting like telekinesis usually is, and Korra ruined any potential of this. I do believe this.
Anonymous No.96266206 >>96266323
>>96265864
>otherwise you'd have an actual example at the ready
Have you never played enough games to actually see this in action? Even D&D uses attack rolls for both weapons and cantrips. The Artificer class literally tells you to just describe all of your spellcasting as if it were gadgets.
But then you also have games like Shadowrun where there are Cybernetic upgrades that let you see through walls, while in D&D you'd need a magic item to do that.
If you want an even broader example, you can look into basically any Superhero RPG, where you can easily declare a character as having whatever source to their powers. Is that super strength an invention? Magic? Mutation? Doesn't matter, because they all end up using the same rules for super strength.

That's why it boils down to flavor, because there's no game mechanic that is inherently 'magical' or 'technological'. It all depends on whatever the game designer (or the GM) decides to say the source is.
You cannot possibly be this retarded.
Anonymous No.96266323 >>96266344 >>96273362 >>96273385 >>96273415
>>96266206
>It all depends on whatever the game designer (or the GM) decides to say the source is.
That is the exact goddamn point everyone has been making. [In the context of a tabletop rpg, what is magical and isn't is determined by the game and not by any other arbitrary standard]. You've been gong "nooooooooooo magic has to be wonder and mystery there is no distinction between magic and sciience noooooooooooooooo you're just too stupid to understand magic has to be whatever I say it is in ever single medium nooooooooooooooooooooooo" every single post.

Frankly, I think the one that's retarded is you, given that you outright went against your own stance and agreed with me JUST to "own" me.
Anonymous No.96266344 >>96266364 >>96273415
>>96266323
>been making. [In the context of a tabletop rpg, what is magical and isn't is determined by the game and not by any other arbitrary standard]. You've been gong "nooooooooooo magic has to be wonder and mystery there is no distinction between magic and sciience noooooooooooooooo
those are two opposing posters, the one saying magic and science are interchangeable and tolkien is scifi and the one saying magic is wonder and whimsy
Anonymous No.96266364 >>96266620 >>96273456
>>96266344
If that's true, this whole debate's become so insufferable I can barely either apart at this point. I just know that this topic was answered in the first few posts, and that it's just gotten more and more off-topic over time like a cancer.
Anonymous No.96266529
>>96265806
Read a few rule books.
Sure if you're lazy they can just be
>Roll die
>Inflict damage
However, if you cared about your system there are infinite ways to differentiate them
>What ressources are required
>How can the player manipulate the check and result
>Effect modifiers
>Wear and tear of gear
>What random complications and critical effects occur
So far I haven't encountered a setting or system where you'd loose the favour of your god or attract the attention of a demon for fumbling your small arms check.
Anonymous No.96266620
>>96266364
The debate has been pic related since its inception. What's tragic is that now any thread discussing magic OR science OR scifi OR fantasy has to endure these two crusading morons.
Anonymous No.96268261 >>96268347
>>96240712 (OP)
I think the editor for Amazing science fiction encouraged writers to explore psionics in their stories and that was some of the most influential sci-fi ever. On top of that there was a brief period when para-psychology was not as widely debunked as it is now so psychic powers seemed more "scientific" than a wizard waving a wand aboard a spaceship.
Anonymous No.96268347
>>96268261
Correct answer if we follow the paper trail. It has been brought up about three times in this thread. Second post already went in this direction.
Unfortunately magic threads attract subhumans that neither read books, nor the thread, and they'll use it as a dumping ground for baseless ass pulls and grade school world building, until it hits bump limit.
Anonymous No.96273362 >>96273465
>>96266323
>That is the exact goddamn point everyone has been making.
That’s actually what the original OP has been saying. You’re just genuinely too stupid to be in agreement, since you’d rather argue than agree. You then project by claiming “you just want to be correct!”, as though you yourself weren’t doing it.
Anonymous No.96273385 >>96273465 >>96273588
>>96266323
>In the context of a tabletop rpg, what is magical and isn't is determined by the game and not by any other arbitrary standard
So you agree that it “depends on the game”, which is a variant of “it depends on the setting/author”, which extends to “it depends on the person/culture”, since all irl religion is in essence a story, or a game, of make belief. A way of looking at nature.

You are agreeing that magic is “magic”, or a point of view, and yet you still don’t see it that way. Weird.
Anonymous No.96273415 >>96273465 >>96273588
>>96266323
The argument was that what leads up to things like religion and accusations of magic, superposition, etc, can be sourced to essences of enchantment, or mystery, wonder, etc. Exposure logic.

Something can be called magic, sure, but it’s not going to be safe from another using the word - or the meaning of the word - for their own purposes or experiences. Does it bewilder? Then it’s magic. But what if there’s something already called magic? Now you have an issue. And do remember that words like magic and miracles amounted to the same damn thing, and arguing that they were different was essentially a slap fight.

>>96266344
No. Those aren’t opposing posters. I am those posters. If you think they’re opposed then there’s a misunderstanding here.
Anonymous No.96273456 >>96273485 >>96273588
>>96266364
It’s been insufferable because “magic being the mind’s eye” IS magic, in the sense that “it depends on preference”. This is all that has ever been argued by the OP in the other threads. That magic is “magic”. JRR Tolkien agrees. George R R Martin agrees. Arthur C Clarke agrees. Alan Moore agrees. Etc.
Anonymous No.96273465 >>96273581
>>96273362
That is absolutely not what OP has been saying and you know it, considering you're also >>96273385 and >>96273415 . You've literally done nothing to add to your argument beyond just repeating it ad naseum hoping everyone would give the absolute fuck up.

Seriously, well and truly fuck off, you nogaems cocksucker.
Anonymous No.96273485 >>96273571
>>96273456
Also, "magic is "magic" " is the stupidest forced meme ever
Anonymous No.96273543
>>96240712 (OP)
Ten examples.
Anonymous No.96273571 >>96273606 >>96273673
>>96273485
How? Why? Magic is literally whatever the writer wants it to be. Magic is just a description. Not a definition. Define magic at your own peril, to the detriment of anything else out there that can be described as magical. It’s that simple.

The amount of fictions out there doesn’t make this clear enough for you? There’s magic systems for literally everything.
Anonymous No.96273581 >>96273606
>>96273465
>That is absolutely not what OP has been saying
But that’s exactly what I’ve been saying. Now you’re denying me my view. You’re schizophrenic or something.
Anonymous No.96273585
>>96261529
No.
Anonymous No.96273588 >>96273601 >>96273612
>>96273415
>but it’s not going to be safe from another using the word - or the meaning of the word - for their own purposes or experiences.
And those people are, inside the setting, simply wrong.

>But what if there’s something already called magic? Now you have an issue.
Not if you allow that to be simply wrong. It is only when you insist every usage of it must remain valid inside the fiction, no matter how thoroughly it is tailored otherwise, that the "problem" emerges.

>And do remember that words like magic and miracles amounted to the same damn thing, and arguing that they were different was essentially a slap fight.
And that theology can be entirely dismissed from the counterfactual of the fiction.

>>96273456
>It’s been insufferable because “magic being the mind’s eye” IS magic, in the sense that “it depends on preference”. This is all that has ever been argued by the OP in the other threads.
And the counter is that this does not function inside the fiction, nor for rules limiting valid actions for players in games using the fiction's setting.

>JRR Tolkien agrees. George R R Martin agrees. Arthur C Clarke agrees. Alan Moore agrees.
Appeal to Authority fallacy. Their positions do not function for a tabletop game ruleset, and so are Not Even Wrong.

>Seriously, well and truly fuck off, you nogaems cocksucker.
Says the one who refuses to discuss in terms of games, instead continuously shoehorning real-life history and etymology into the discussion.

>>96273385
>which is a variant of “it depends on the setting/author”, which extends to “it depends on the person/culture”
This not only does not follow, it is a blank rejection of the clearly-explained limitation of scope.
Anonymous No.96273601 >>96273673
>>96273588
>And those people are, inside the setting, simply wrong.
No. It’s just the chemistry in the brain. That’s all that magic is. “Wtf that’s weird”. There are different words to describe this sensation.
Anonymous No.96273606 >>96273627 >>96273641 >>96273650 >>96273663
>>96273571
>>96273581
Because all you've been doing is using equivocation constantly to sound wise when really, you're just being a brainlet. Especially because that particular phrase is an attempt to be a blanket statement applying to both real life and in various different settings, when that's just now how this shit works at all and you know it. Seriously, fuck you.
Anonymous No.96273612 >>96273632 >>96273673
>>96273588
>This not only does not follow, it is a blank rejection of the clearly-explained limitation
No it follows quite succinctly. Magic is “magic” because “it depends on the author”. It’s that simple. Magic to one is not magic to another, and this extends to fiction, which is written any another.
Anonymous No.96273627 >>96273638 >>96273673
>>96273606
>Because all you've been doing is using equivocation constantly to sound wise when really, you're just being a brainlet

This sounds like a you problem. You’re projecting again. “You just want to be in the right all the time!”, “you think you’re so wise huh?”, etc.

Stop it. None of this is profound. It doesn’t take a smart person to get any of this. It’s easy to miss, it’s not hard to understand. Why are you threatened by basest logic? It’s like you think you yourself are incapable of coming to such a conclusion. I’m pretty sure you would have, at some point or another.
Anonymous No.96273632
>>96273612
which is written by* another
Anonymous No.96273638 >>96273663
>>96273627
Fuck off
Anonymous No.96273641 >>96273649 >>96273673
>>96273606
>when that's just now how this shit works at all and you know it
Nah it pretty much works that way irl; all religion is essentially stage magic logic; all fiction is derived from irl experiences.
Anonymous No.96273649 >>96273663
>>96273641
You can fuck off too
Anonymous No.96273650 >>96273658
>>96273606
Translation: “I hate it when you talk like a sensible person”
Anonymous No.96273658 >>96273663
>>96273650
Nah, you can just fuck off
Anonymous No.96273663 >>96273685
>>96273606
>>96273638
>>96273649
>>96273658
Translation: “I can’t cope!”
Anonymous No.96273673 >>96273691 >>96273702
>>96273571
>Magic is literally whatever the writer wants it to be.
To the exclusion of what other writers and totalizing midwits like you want it to be.

>Magic is just a description. Not a definition.
Unless you pay attention to the Noun definitions in the dictionaries.

>Define magic at your own peril, to the detriment of anything else out there that can be described as magical.
Inside the context a particular writer establishes, that "anything else" is simply wrong and your argument is invalid to the point of being Not Even Wrong.

>>96273601
>It’s just the chemistry in the brain.
The internal context of the fiction is not required to adhere to any recognized law of neurochemistry, as these are extremely derived logic rather than introducing much strain to internal consistency.

>There are different words to describe this sensation.
And most of them have separate noun meanings refer to different classes of purported phenomena, giving them very distinct connotations that together make presence as objective categories in a counterfactualtrivial.

>>96273612
>Magic to one is not magic to another, and this extends to fiction, which is written any another.
To quote the part of the statement you refuse to recognize:
>and not by any other arbitrary standard
The writer establishes a narrowly-defined context on which outside phenomena are only assured influence as specified. Thus every single IRL thing can be dismissed, including those your prescribed definition of "magic" relies upon.

>>96273627
>Why are you threatened by basest logic?
We aren't, it's that we keep trying to beat in that you're failing miserably to use it because you keep asserting extremely derived things belong to it and refuse any contrary prior.

>>96273641
>all fiction is derived from irl experiences.
Which includes willful contradiction to IRL experience. Like any given physical law being declared different.
Anonymous No.96273685
>>96273663
Nah, I'm just done bothering to elaborate further, so you can fuck off
Anonymous No.96273691 >>96273748
>>96273673
>To the exclusion of what other writers and totalizing midwits like you want it to be.

I will repeat myself:
— “Define magic at your own peril, to the detriment (exclusion) of anything else that can be described as magical”

/thread
Anonymous No.96273702 >>96273717 >>96273748
>>96273673
>To the exclusion of what other writers
Who hurt you? Did you write a magic system? Did someone tell you “heh thats not magic?”. Did it scar you for life? Is it why you’re so obsessed with magic being a specific rather than it being subjective?
Anonymous No.96273717
>>96273702
He’s insane anon.
Anonymous No.96273748 >>96273790
>>96273691
You are arguing that intentionally contradictory positions must be reconcilable with your refusal of the fourth wall, that the cosmology described by works which explicitly modify our laws of physics must be fitted to them, that settings predicated on willful archaisms being trivially demonstrable rather than falsified must accept your retarded reduction of what the word used by that archaism means.

That is not how any of the logic governing such things actually works. Your argument doesn't even pass basic grammar requirements, because the statements using "magic" as a noun fundamentally do not work with your adverb meaning. You are Not Even Wrong because your position results in incoherent sentences, let alone the sheer nonsense downstream of it.

>>96273702
"Able to be specified for a specific case" does not mean "is a specific thing for all cases". Again, words have multiple meanings that must be distinguished by context. Your approach is completely incapable of addressing contranyms like "literally".
Anonymous No.96273790 >>96273864
>>96273748
So if two fictions with two opposing takes on magic suddenly intermingled, you wouldn’t see the irony of the situation?
Anonymous No.96273864
>>96273790
Yet again, words have multiple meanings that must be distinguished by context. The context distinguishing them shifting from "what setting are you talking about?" to a more specific one does not change that they can be distinguished by context. Or a third definition can be coined based on the commonalities of the two, ignoring still-outside-context magic.

Even in the limit case of this where one examines all fiction together, too many have nothing to do with the emotional experience of "wonder" for them to resolve to that singular meaning. You end up still having enormous value to categorizing them by shared properties to discuss the particulars of each work of fiction in relation to others.
Anonymous No.96275448
Bloody hell. Can't you faggots argue faster, so this thread can finally hit the bump limit?
Anonymous No.96278680 >>96278704 >>96278724 >>96278804
I really don’t understand why magic and technology being the same thing pisses off certain autists.

How are you supposed to differentiate magic from technology if both rely on natural laws inherent to the universe? Saying magic is “supernatural” doesn’t really work.
Anonymous No.96278704 >>96278728 >>96278742 >>96278752
>>96278680
>How are you supposed to differentiate magic from technology if both rely on natural laws inherent to the universe?
Some settings they don't.
>Saying magic is “supernatural” doesn’t really work.
If you aren't autistic, it can be a good enough reasoning.

>I really don’t understand why magic and technology being the same thing pisses off certain autists.
It only does when certain other autists insist that's a universal rather than a case by case basis, much like how psychokinetic powers aren't regarded as magic in some works of fiction but are regarded as such in others.

Gee, how mysterious
Anonymous No.96278724 >>96278733
>>96278680
>How are you supposed to differentiate magic from technology if both rely on natural laws inherent to the universe?
When magic isn't based in natural law, is based in natural law from a qualitatively different other-world, the tooling overhead, the basic aesthetics, the linguistic separation of "technology" and "technique", and sundry others.

>Saying magic is “supernatural” doesn’t really work.
It is when you aren't a totalizing midwit insisting on bloating words to their widest possible meaning as a cope for semantic ambiguity. Especially when you can wrap your head around fiction readily bearing members of groups without such in reality.
Anonymous No.96278728 >>96278732 >>96278756
>>96278704
>Some settings they don't.
>Some settings
>Some
I’m pretty sure all fictions are real within themselves
Anonymous No.96278732 >>96278742
>>96278728
Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Strange how you're unable to accept.
Anonymous No.96278733 >>96278756
>>96278724
>It is when you aren't a totalizing midwit
>totalizing midwit
You like using the same words a lot
Anonymous No.96278742 >>96278748 >>96278748 >>96278809
>>96278704
>you aren't autistic, it can be a good enough reasoning.
The issue is, the supernatural is just nature we don’t understand well enough. If something happens at all there’s law to it.

>>96278732
All fictions run on rules as demonstrated by the author writing it. You’re basically saying some fictions don’t have rules, or don’t follow causality/storytelling. You’re self defeating!
Anonymous No.96278748 >>96278760
>>96278742
>The issue is, the supernatural is just nature we don’t understand well enough. If something happens at all there’s law to it.
Only sometimes.

>>96278742
More that I'm saying "I don't give a fuck what you think, and neither should anybody else".
Anonymous No.96278752 >>96278764 >>96278809
>>96278704
>It only does when certain other autists insist that's a universal
If you aren’t retarded and you understand what technology is, it’s a universal. Even cooking is applied science/technology. It’s everywhere. Unavoidable really. If an intelligence repurposes or makes use of nature, then it’s technology, technically. A stick is technically technology.
Anonymous No.96278756 >>96278771 >>96278773
>>96278728
And the "realness" inside the fiction is a very different thing not bound to the materialist monism your construction excluding "supernatural" from logical validity relies upon. To project it into those works that are explicitly constructed around cosmological pluralism and the phenomena materialism distinguished itself by rejecting is a far worse violation of logic.

>>96278733
Because you keep ignoring the point and keep demonstrating they apply.
Anonymous No.96278760 >>96278770 >>96278809
>>96278748
>Only sometimes.
Technically no, not from the physics perspective. To the physicist reality is reality. Doesn’t matter how weird or defiant it seems. That’s just how it is. You are basically claiming that naturalism is just an opinion, when it’s just assuming reality is reality. Physics deals with what is real.
Anonymous No.96278764 >>96278779
>>96278752
Except when stated otherwise in a work of fiction, since I live in the real world and can conceive of potential situations that don't match reality. Wheras I don't think you can turn the apple in your head.
Anonymous No.96278770 >>96278773
>>96278760
When it comes to fiction, only sometimes
Anonymous No.96278771 >>96278809
>>96278756
>And the "realness" inside the fiction is a very different thing not bound to the materialist monism
>materialist monism
Um what. You’re living in a world of materialism right now. Creating a fiction is a construction of a kind. You cannot avoid it. You just hate physics or something. Are you religious by chance? If not, you’re still believing that fiction is omnipotent, when it’s just not. That’s not really different from believing in an omnipotent God!
Anonymous No.96278773 >>96278789 >>96278809
>>96278756
>Because you keep ignoring the point
But that’s what you’re doing. You ignore what science, technology is.
>>96278770
No, sorry. There is logic to fiction. You can’t remove math from fiction, or just causality. It cannot be done. Oh well.
Anonymous No.96278779 >>96278809
>>96278764
Anon. There are limits to fiction. An author can say stuff like “causality and math don’t exist in my setting”, and that doesn’t make him right about his wrongness. Without math or causality there can be no anything. Sorry. That’s just how it is.
Anonymous No.96278789 >>96278823
>>96278773
>No, sorry. There is logic to fiction. You can’t remove math from fiction, or just causality. It cannot be done.
Someone theoretically can. And there's nothing you can do about it.

>Anon. There are limits to fiction.
lol

> Sorry. That’s just how it is.
Only sometimes
Anonymous No.96278804 >>96278814
>>96278680
I could launch into a whole fucking essay about magic as a system, magic as a system outside of the system, magic as technology, technology as magic, and technology that incorporates magic as a system outside of a system, but /tg/ - and (you) in particular - are not really intelligent enough for it to be worth my time.

So instead I'll just leave you with the most streamlined version of that conversation as I can and hope your smooth, midwitted brain can comprehend: this is this and that is that.
Anonymous No.96278809 >>96278823
>>96278742
>The issue is, the supernatural is just nature we don’t understand well enough.
Or using one of the definitions that has an extant out-group, simply higher powers that violate the lower-order rules of "nature". Hence "super-natural". The qualitative differences between these higher powers and "nature" allow for a perfectly logically valid self-classification as "supernatural", no matter your totalizing midwitery insisting materialist monism is the only logically valid worldview even in explicit counterfactuals.

Note, a worldview being logically valid does not entail it is true, merely that it is internally consistent.

>All fictions run on rules as demonstrated by the author writing it.
Which need not be as demanded by you.

>>96278752
Does not apply when using more limited meanings of the word "technology" distinct from the word "technique".

>>96278760
And within the expressly anti-materialist counterfactual, all of this is inapplicable. Your worldview is extremely derived, not reflective of low-level logic, because you KEEP relying on particulars of our world and insist on shoving the conclusions into things that are not.

>>96278771
>You’re living in a world of materialism right now.
And that doesn't make me incapable of considering worlds that aren't. That is what a "counterfactual" is, a conditional hypothetical who's condition is declaring something false true or vice-versa.

>>96278773
>You ignore what science, technology is.
No, I look at common usage of the terms and actual dictionaries and conclude you are wrong about what they mean, then dismiss your semantic arguments accordingly.

>>96278779
And things like "all reality is material things in a singular manifold" are not inviolate within those limits. Fiction can wipe its ass with every experiment your worldview relies on, for all the consequences of such archaisms being correct get very difficult to manage.
Anonymous No.96278814 >>96278820 >>96278833 >>96278839
>they are different because they look different!
Lol.

>>96278804
I’m sorry you can’t accept that magic is literally just an opinion. “It depends on the author”. Retarded catposter.
Anonymous No.96278820 >>96278832
>>96278814
>“It depends on the author”.
You've yet to refute it beyond insistence that somehow you individually know better than every single storyteller ever, which judging by every other post you've made is the greatest fiction of all
Anonymous No.96278823 >>96278827 >>96278833
>>96278789
Nah. You can’t parse basest logic. Sad!

>>96278809
>Or using one of the definitions that has an extant out-group, simply higher powers that violate the lower-order rules of "nature". Hence "super-natural".
And is it still supernatural to those beings? No. Like how the ‘supernatural’ feats of the elves in Tolkien see it as just nature/art.

But do go ahead and throw another tantrum about how wrong Tolkien is.
Anonymous No.96278827 >>96278850
>>96278823
I know you're illogical anon, but no need to quote Donald Trump at me
Anonymous No.96278832 >>96278849
>>96278820
>You've yet to refute it beyond insistence that somehow you individually know better than every single storyteller ever
I don’t. Claiming magic is a specific something is doing that. YOU think YOU know better than all other authors. I don’t. Therefore I settle for magic being “magic”, because it’s all a fictional opinion. This can be extended to our own irl histories. Religion is either magical or it isn’t, and arguing about differences came across as semantic warfare, or hair splitting.
Anonymous No.96278833 >>96278850
>>96278814
>they are different because they look different!
That does tend to be how genre fiction goes, yes.

>“It depends on the author”
By which it is meant that within the author's work it is not an opinion. They declare the meaning of "magic" for the context they establish in their setting. Your reductionism relies too heavily on things outside that context to apply.

>>96278823
>You can’t parse basest logic.
That's you, with your crippling inability to address anything on contrary priors.

>And is it still supernatural to those beings? No.
I repeat:
>The qualitative differences between these higher powers and "nature" allow for a perfectly logically valid self-classification as "supernatural", no matter your totalizing midwitery insisting materialist monism is the only logically valid worldview even in explicit counterfactuals.
Anonymous No.96278839
>>96278814
So it was too much for you to handle. i am truley sorry for your lots
>retarded catposter
And the tourist reveals itself.
Anonymous No.96278849 >>96278860
>>96278832
>I don’t.
That's what your retarded "magic being “magic” " meme is saying, though, that you can definitively claim every depiction of magic is how you claim it is.

Wheras a child can tell you that sometimes magic is a real thing while in other instances it's sometimesnot. I'm sorry that you're not as smart as a child.
Anonymous No.96278850 >>96278870 >>96278884 >>96279125
>>96278827
>bringing up Trump out of fucking nowhere
Lol. You really are unhinged.

>>96278833
>I repeat:
Yeah, and as of old you before, the gods could exist and still not be seen as gods by people. It’s the same with magic. You are basically screaming “magic is magic no matter the perspective!”. You are more or less assaulting people by imposing your opinion or idea of magic in all others.

That’s not how it works. Magic can be anything the author decides it to be. You are not the authority. The author is. This translates into magic being “magic”, as it’s literally whatever the fuck the author wants it to be.
Anonymous No.96278860 >>96278876
>>96278849
>That's what your retarded "magic being “magic” " meme is saying, though, that you can definitively claim every depiction of magic is how you claim it is
Nope. I’m saying magic is whatever the author decides. That’s “magic”. Get over it. The alternative is claiming your idea of magic is the correct one over all others.
Anonymous No.96278870
>>96278850
and as I’ve told* you before

Anyway I’m phoneposting and I’m off break; goodbye!
Anonymous No.96278876
>>96278860
So you agree that magic exists in some settings, and doesn't exist in others, and that what is magic is dependent on the creator's say so and not the "opinion" of some stupid /tg/ troll.

Glad you finally got over yourself, anon.
Anonymous No.96278884 >>96278904
>>96278850
>the gods could exist and still not be seen as gods by people
And those people can be simply wrong within the context of a particular setting.

>You are basically screaming “magic is magic no matter the perspective!”
Within the context of a particular setting.

>You are more or less assaulting people by imposing your opinion or idea of magic in all others.
No, that's you insisting on "wonder" to the exclusion of anything particular enough to write a rule for a game with.

>Magic can be anything the author decides it to be. You are not the authority. The author is.
That is literally the counter-point to you constantly repeating that "magic is whatever the fuck/an absence/etc", because you keep using it to argue that it cannot be pinned down for a particular setting.
Anonymous No.96278885 >>96278894
“Magic is whatever the fuck the mind sees it as”
“No it’s whatever I, the author, say it is!”
“That is literally what I just said”
“Um no you are a totalizing monist midwit”
“I think you’re retarded”
“I know you are but what am I?”
“I truly think you’re retarded”
Anonymous No.96278894 >>96278908
>>96278885
Really that broken up that people find your brainfarts stupid, huh?
Anonymous No.96278904 >>96278924
>>96278884
>Within the context of a particular setting
Humans transcend settings. We make them. Fictions also incorporate perceptions of their own, within the setting, meaning persons in-setting are subject to their own subjections. Whether they see it as magic isn’t assured.

This is partly why you have Tolkien’s elves, or the Dwemer in the Elder Scrolls. They’re “atheists in a world where gods exist”, and the irony is apparent since a god is essentially just a worshiped or godlike alien being. Even a human can be worshiped like a god, like the Kims of North Korea.
Anonymous No.96278908 >>96278924 >>96278934
>>96278894
No I’m just baffled at how blind you are to your own argument.

“The sky is blue”
“No, the sky is blue”
“I just said that”
“But you didn’t”

Lmfao
Anonymous No.96278924 >>96279032
>>96278904
>Humans transcend settings. We make them.
Which is irrelevant to the truth-value of statements within the setting.

>Whether they see it as magic isn’t assured.
And the "magic" can be an objective thing that refusing to see as such is simply wrong.

>This is partly why you have Tolkien’s elves, or the Dwemer in the Elder Scrolls.
Which have no bearing on settings not their own.

>since a god is essentially just a worshiped or godlike alien being
In your totalizing midwittery that insists on reducing everything to the willful disregard of context boundaries.

>>96278908
>still missing the distinction
Have you considered stepping back and carefully going through the posts one word at a time until them being disagreement makes sense?
Anonymous No.96278934 >>96279023
>>96278908
It's more like
>Every Who down in Whoville liked Christmas a lot...
>"Echskuze me, but there is no Whoville in real life, that's just an illusion"
>Yes, I know it's not real, it's just part of the story though
>"Well I can't ackscept that"
>You can't accept there's a place called Whoville?
>"No, because it doesn't align with history or my views on Whos "
>...Do you even know what a story is?
>"No"
Anonymous No.96279023 >>96279034 >>96279048
>>96278934
If you think magic isn’t an illusion you’re sadly a doofus.
Anonymous No.96279030
Woweee
Only two more replies until bump limit.
You guys should hurry and declare a wimmer.
Anonymous No.96279032 >>96279058 >>96279061
>>96278924
>Which is irrelevant to the truth-value of statements within the setting.
An author can write ignorance into his works you realize. No matter how hard writes “math doesn’t exist” he will always be wrong, and math will still, and always, exist within his setting. He cannot write a triangle is a cube. He can’t do it. Arguing otherwise means you’ve a fundamental misunderstanding.
Anonymous No.96279034 >>96279079
>>96279023
Few settings that have wizards frying people with fireballs make sense with magic being an illusion.
Anonymous No.96279048
>>96279023
>If you think magic isn’t an illusion you’re sadly a doofus.
Only sometimes , anon
Also, thank you very much for proving my point.

Thank god this stupid thread's hit the bump limit.
Anonymous No.96279057
Aaaaand we're done! Thanks y'all for participating.
Magic = Technology guy wins by pure autism. Special thanks to bumpfaggot for keeping the thread alive.
If anyone's interested, the thread question was answered in the second reply. See you next time at "are body fluids magic".
Anonymous No.96279058
>>96279032
You seem the type to read "If you give a mouse a cookie" to get hung up on the concept that a mouse can talk to a human being at all and comprehend what a glass of milk is, and start screaming how nobody can write things like this, it's clearly all an illusion of a sick mind.

In other words, an ultra-autist.
Anonymous No.96279061 >>96279089
>>96279032
>An author can write ignorance into his works you realize.
Writing according to an intentional rejection of true things is not ignorance, it is writing a counterfactual. The supposed "ignorance" is precluded by the priors of the setting intentionally selected in contradiction to reality.

>Arguing otherwise means you’ve a fundamental misunderstanding.
But we aren't arguing that he can write math not existing or triangles are cubes, we're arguing that he can write things like a non-monist cosmology wherein the Gods have objective criteria to distinguish themselves from mortals and their works from nature or other frameworks where all your semantic arguments are invalid.
Anonymous No.96279079 >>96279094 >>96279173 >>96279537
If both magic and technology have hard rules that you can manipulate precisely, there's no difference at all between them other than aesthetic. Technology is just applied science.

Even that's sorta questionable. Like we don't have the “magic” (or whatever they call magic) in X or Y setting, so we see it as being very different and very exotic (and as such, magic/“magic”) from the science and technology we do have, but someone from that fictional world probably wouldn't make the same distinction. Or they’d see our technology as our own magic. It’s one sided.

Similar to how we don't really distinguish between technologies that use different power sources aesthetically. One planet may call their glowing blue goop magic while another planet may call their ‘totally different’ glowing green goop magic too.

But it’s still nature, physics, science, etc.

>>96279034
It being seen as magic is the illusion. It’s not a hard definition for anything. A thing being called magic is something to enforce. Humans have a disenchantment narrative in mind.
Anonymous No.96279089 >>96279173
>>96279061
>But we aren't arguing that he can write math not existing or triangles are cubes
We essentially are, since you’re essentially claiming an author can do anything. You’re saying an author can make magic that’s always magic no matter the perspective. That’s impossible and we only need to look at real life nerds to see why.
Anonymous No.96279094
>>96279079
So, if someone told you they were writing a book where the main character learns magic, would you outright tell them that they in fact are not going to do that since their character is clearly just a scientist and that the magic in the story they're writing is all an illusion of the mind?
Anonymous No.96279125 >>96279198
>>96278850
>>bringing up Trump out of fucking nowhere
Are you really too young to know where "Sad!" came from? If so you must be underage b&
Anonymous No.96279173
>>96279079
>If both magic and technology have hard rules that you can manipulate precisely
...Do you have any idea how many systematic approaches to magic don't have hard rules or precise manipulation thereof?

>but someone from that fictional world probably wouldn't make the same distinction.
Not when the magic is a willful archaism closely matching the parameters of when there was in fact well-established and respected science distinguished from occultism people honestly believed in.

>But it’s still nature, physics, science, etc.
Those are not synonymous, nor particularly difficult to construct an out-group to all three of according to the definitions in common use.

>It being seen as magic is the illusion.
Not inside the setting's context. That's the point of the author saying what it is. Those inside the setting arguing otherwise are simply wrong. Why is it so hard for you to wrap your head around the valid priors differing between reality and fiction?

>>96279089
>We essentially are, since you’re essentially claiming an author can do anything.
No, I'm claiming that an author can write a setting based on contradicting specific high-level physical laws and approaches to interpreting them such that your semantic arguments are invalid within the applicable logic.

>You’re saying an author can make magic that’s always magic no matter the perspective.
Within the setting, due to excluding the priors that result in subjectivity by devising an objective phenomenon fitting particular definitions of "magic" pre-dating reductions like yours. Thus inside the setting, where the author rarely exists, there is an objective category referred to as "magic" that arguing members of aren't magic is simply wrong.
Anonymous No.96279198
>>96279125
You’re sad. Very, very sad.
Anonymous No.96279537
>>96279079
>It’s not a hard definition for anything.

magic
1 of 3
noun
mag·ic ˈma-jik
1b: magic rites or incantations

Or to spell it out, repeated gestures, words, and material components done to elicit noncausal effects. In otherwords, a wizard casting fireball to burn a bunch of goblins or a bunch of farmers performing the spring ritual (dancing, chants, and burning an effigy) that results in increased crop growth for the community. Or simply, spell craft.

Which is a hard and objective definition, one that has been shoved in your face multiple times and which you refuse to understand or acknowledge.
Anonymous No.96283026
>>96240712 (OP)
It's a holdover from when sci-fi was really getting started; The genre was built out of the 'theoretical future sciences' that people were still messing with and didn't even know if it was real. During that time, Scientists were literally experimenting on ESP and psychometry and all of that occult bullshit that turned out to not exist, but by the time that was discovered it was already codified.