# Is Magic Possible?



## kyektulu

*I am in the middle of a debate with a friend at the moment, we are disscussing is magic possible in todays world?
Civilisation has believed in the power of magic for thousands of years and it has always been a big part of culture untill modern times.
There are still witches today. I am not talking of the hag faced fly on a broomstick type but there are people out there who call themselves witches and perform magickal rituals and in the voodoo religion there are still shamens and popularity of these examples are rising in todays hectic culture. 
I have been into the occult for many many years and although I do tend to study more than practice. I do perform spells on occasion. Good luck charms, spells for health and wellbeing that type of thing. 
I honestly feel that they have helped and I have had positive results.
Or in your opinion is this all in my mind?
My friend seems to think so but I believe otherwise there are many things that are possible if we only open our minds and except that there are things out there that cannot be explained by modern science.

*


----------



## Stalker

Everything is possible in our world but, IMHO, ecah second strengthen the physical constants that make its use even harder. I already put that hypothesis in the thread I initiated under the title "*Degrading matter in terms of Expanding Universe?*" http://www.chronicles-network.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6530.
Quite possible that physical constants of our world have been changing since the Big Boom but slower and slower in reversed quadratic progression.
So, in 1st milleinum B.C. it was possible to make magic much-much easier than now, and in the third millenium B.C. even easier than it was in the 1st! 
And it can be the explanation why Pyramids and Stonehenge could have been built at that time. 
Why not?


----------



## Ash

Despite being a fairly scientific and fairly (I hope) rational person I agree with you that there are things out there that cannot be explained by modern science. That doesn't mean that they won't in the future, but it would be supremely arrogant to think we understand everything at the moment!

In the past the term "supernatural" meant a lot more than it does now. It tended to mean things that couldn't be explained by science. Gravity, for a long time, was a supernatural force, a force that couldn't be explained by science. In essence, magic.

I tend to think that if we look at something and decide it's "magic" it's just a label we're choosing to apply to something we don't fully understand. A scientist might not like to use the word, they might prefer to call it "unexplained phenomenom" or something like that, but in essence it's the same thing.

With that in mind I think magic was a bigger part of society in the past simply because there was so much more in the world we didn't understand. 

In your personal example... spells for luck and health and the like. In one way I tend to agree with your friend, yes it's in your mind. But even if it is in your head, the fact that positive though formalised as some kind of ritual can actually have an effect on your life is fairly magical. 

If you do something and it makes you feel better something positive is happening here, that may not be entirely explainable. Beyond that what we decide to label it is up to us. And magic as as good a label as any


----------



## Ash

While I'm at it I guess I should jump in and offer up Arthur C Clarke's 3rd Law... it's appearance in this thread is pretty much inevitable!

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


----------



## Stalker

Ash said:
			
		

> I tend to think that if we look at something and decide it's "magic" it's just a label we're choosing to apply to something we don't fully understand. A scientist might not like to use the word, they might prefer to call it "unexplained phenomenom" or something like that, but in essence it's the same thing.


100% agree. Magic is just one more term for unexplained.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy

I find Stalker's theory intriguing - but I'm not sure how seriously to take it! That's one of the reasons I like your posts though, Stalker - I never get the same old recycled common-knowledge opinion! 


Strictly, magic is any sort of act performed by invoking supernatural powers - at least that's what the dictionaries tell me - so I suppose the real question here isn't whether or not modern science can explain everything, but whether there is actually a supernatural element to our world whereby spells, charms and so on can actually have an impact. Personally I think it's 99% all in the mind, but I will concede 1% of doubt, which is a big step for a sceptical person!


----------



## Stalker

Kaballa says that each sound, each letter contain magic, Ancient Scandinavians were of the same opinion creating their FUTARK runes.
My point is that that empiric knowledge our ancestors had collected contained something like this (here I am less sceptical than you, JP, so I would give 21% for such a possibility  ). So, in real, one ingredient or composition of only few ingredients out of many in the potion or sound or composition of sounds could actually invoke magical forces (let's speak in Subjunctive). All the rest might be excessive. But that was empirical experience, so the recipee was repeated from generation to generation blindly without explanation of the forces applied.
The other question is what is probability for a humankind to accumulate such huge amounts of "esoteric" knowlege for such a short period time if we take the point of view of official anthropology?


----------



## warlock

I think there's a difference between the belief in magic, and the inducing of altered states of consciousness which shamanic, voodoo and witchcraft rituals practice (not always as their stated aim), and the actual changing of physical reality according to the will of a shaman, witch, etc.

Quantum physics and the observer effect is often brought in as an escape route to make magic possible, to me this is similar to the "Intelligent Designer" position of Christian fundamentals of using the Big Bang - the belief in God/magic/whatever precedes the physical proof they offer as evidence. For quantum physics to be an explanation of magic, you'd have to say how a person can impose their will on randomness in the subatomic world, and how whatever was imprinted down there is then translated up to the visible, material world (something orthodox science can't do for quite normal phenomena). I suppose in theory this does leave open the possibility of magic, but I would say it is very very unlikely, and unless you know how it is suppoesd to work, will probably never amount to much


----------



## FelineEyes

Due to certain boundries of my religion, say what will you about it, I tend to shy away from anything that smells of magic.  
So, yes, I believe there is magic, or some other force akin to magic, in existance. 
However, I don't believe its as prominent as everyone would like to believe.  I believe that magic, under most normal circumtances, is a matter of the mind believeing in something so greatly that it triumps over the known physical world.
And that, I believe, is a kind of magic in itself.


----------



## Jaxom_Ruatha

Has anyone seen "What the Bleep do we know?" After watching that I have to say I think it is all in the head, if doing rituals or chanting helps us become confident about something great! But as long as you believe in something enough it can happen, like if you believe you are healthy or tired etc. you will be.


----------



## don sky

IMHO, I dont think magic exists! The human Being is full of untapped potential and we downplay ourselves, thereby underestimating the power of the human spirit! The concept of magic is just pure fantasy and all scientifically unexplainable "GOOD" things should be attributed to the creator! But then that's just MHO!


----------



## Stalker

Well, I would emphasise that by magic I mean using the laws of nature in non-technogenic way. May it be so that a magician or a shaman while doing all magic procedures invokes natural powers by saying a spell or whatever that he obtained from his teacher without even knowing its sence. That is similar to using computer without knowing all the processes going on within it while processing data. _Such_ magic may exist? 

We are all rational men living in techo-era, so, maybe admitting existance of magic may seem admitting silliness of our own selves? 
A philosophic thasis says: "The more we know, the less we know". That is explained in quite an easy way. Imagine a circle. All space within the circle is our knowledge, all space outside it is unknown. When we expand our knowlege, the circle grows but the circuit grows as well. So, expanding our knowledge, we multiply questions as well. 
Being the agnosticist myself, I may presume existence of everything in the Univerce because I simply believe that space occupied by unknown simply has no limits.


----------



## nixie

I would like to believe in magic.The rational part of me says its not possible,but then there is that little voice who tells me anything's possible.There is enough mystery in the world that can't be explained away by science,do maybe magic is feasible.


----------



## cyborg_cinema

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."—Arthur C. Clarke


----------



## Rosemary

'You can go as far as your mind lets you.  What you believe in you can achieve.'


----------



## polymorphikos

I never come-up with satisfactory answers to these kinds of questions, because whilst I very much stick to science and empirical evidence, the line between the supernatural and the merely-odd is very blurred. Which is to say that any insane, crazy thing you can think of might (due to something we do not as yet understand) be a theoretical possibility, and everything from ghosts to gods quantifiable. Nothing new there, but still.

However, irregardless of whether magic is possible or not, almost everything I have encountered about human magic (in the sense provided by JP) that was not in a book with poor references and a sensationalist title indicates that, if there is magic in the world, people have no idea how to access it.


----------



## cyborg_cinema

Plenty of modern technology may have been considered "magic" 1000 years ago.


----------



## dreamwalker

^^No


----------



## kyektulu

*In a way I am a bit suprised by peoples scepticism, but I do understand.
In many ways I am alot more sceptical now I am older, but there is still a fanciful part of me which wants to believe that magic exists, maybe just for my own comfort...
It would be so nice to be intertwined with nature in such a way, but I am a dreamer...
*


----------



## SkepJ

I'll have to give magic a big no. Magic being defined as symbolically effecting events. ie. rain dances, voo doo dolls ect. Even if I believe I can fly with all my heart, if I jump off a cliff I'll die on the rocks below. It may be a killjoy somewhat, but nothing can break physical law. If it's physical law it's not magic, it's just weird. QM is weird. To call something supernatural just because we don't yet know how/why it works, acts that way ect. Is just as silly as saying Zeus is the source of lightning when you don't know about atoms and electrons. I'd rather say I don't know.


----------



## cyborg_cinema

SkepJ said:
			
		

> ...To call something supernatural just because we don't yet know how/why it works, acts that way...


...Sleight of hand card tricks are magic—the craft of the deft magician—as if a card materialized out of thin air. Another example: ritual magic of a medium who conjures a spirit. Couldn't magic be anything unexplainable that mystifys us?


----------



## SkepJ

cyborg_cinema said:
			
		

> ...Sleight of hand card tricks are magic—the craft of the deft magician—as if a card materialized out of thin air. Another example: ritual magic of a medium who conjures a spirit. Couldn't magic be anything unexplainable that mystifys us?


 
No, sleight of hand card tricks are just that, sleight of hand. I prefer to call "magic" of this type illusionism. Why? Because they're not really doing what it looks like they are. Just because you can't tell somebody is lying to you doesn't mean they're telling the truth. 
Except they don't. It's a con. I very much dislike these people for preying on people's gullibility and emotional weakness. Illusionists in entertainment, such as David Copperfield or David Blaine don't tell people they're for real, because they aren't. Illusionism is just for fun, like watching special effects in a movie. 

You can define magic what you will. Magic means supernatural to me. Supernatural in my worldview isn't real. If we can detect something, it's physical. If we can't detect something how do you know it exists?


----------



## kyektulu

*SkepJ we also have no conclusive proof that there is a deity out there (call 'him' God or whatever) but millions of people believe 'he' exists and I wouldnt define them as gullible.
Sometimes it is better not to know these things faith is a powerful thing and it would be terrible for mankind to lose this quality. 
*


----------



## SkepJ

kyektulu said:
			
		

> *SkepJ we also have no conclusive proof that there is a deity out there (call 'him' God or whatever) but millions of people believe 'he' exists and I wouldnt define them as gullible.
> Sometimes it is better not to know these things faith is a powerful thing and it would be terrible for mankind to lose this quality.
> *




Hoo boy! I'm going to let this one go because I didn't come here for yet another debate on faith and gods like I have elsewhere. I'm all about freedom to believe what one wants, as long as it doesn't hurt or is forced on any one else. I personally just lack faith and am a much more happy and a better person because of it. Seeking truth over what just feels good to believe is one of my goals.


----------



## kyektulu

*Good choice I dont want a god-debate either I was just raising a point.
Im not religious either. 
*


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy

I'd have to say your point is no point at all, Ky (can I call you that? It's a bit shorter to type). Lots of people have believed lots of strange things over the years - belief alone doesn't make it so. Having said that, I'm not going to enter into a god debate either.


----------



## kyektulu

*I am not saying that belief alone makes the supernatural  real knivesout, I was just saying that if people want to believe  in such things it doesnt make them gullible! 

Its ok to call me Ky most people do anyway. 
*


----------



## cyborg_cinema

..."magic" can also be based on perspective(e.g. the period of history—or prehistory—when the label was applied). Literature and recorded history have carried some of that "magic" through the centuries, to get mixed in with supernatural phenomena of today—which may not be considered "supernatural" in 500 years.


----------



## kyektulu

*Yes you raise a good point cyborg_cinema.
 What about magic existing today, the use of witchcraft and such, is magic a real phenomenon in your opinion? 
*


----------



## cyborg_cinema

Can charms, spells and rituals of medieval times produce supernatural effects? How much of that is merely folklore passed down through the centuries? 

The art of fortunetelling is "magic", but there are plenty of quack dial-a-psychics—and mediums—out there.

Psychic mediums may call up spirits on a nightly basis. Are such conjured spirits really the disembodied spirits of former loved ones, or something else? We have much more awareness of the material realm than we do the spiritual realm. But even basic human perception can be questioned, according to philosophers. Deception is just as possible as misinterpretation—both are more likely than what most of us agree upon today.

"is magic possible?" is a big question, and there is a lot of distortion.


----------



## Leto

Magic as such no. It's just a name for science we don't yet understand.


----------



## dragula_66

I saw a show on New Zealand television recently (on one of our top curent affairs shows), campbell live, incase any kiwis are on this site, that reviewed witchcraft in New Zealand.  For the most part it looked like a lot of diluded people pretending (or at least trying) to perform certain rites, but i found i kind of interesting, although i did not believe any of it for a second.  It was to steriotypical, e.g. women dancing and chanting in a forest at nite etc... i mean thats fairly boring, 'been done', kinda stuff.

However i kindof believe in magic, especially when im high hehe, but even when straight, it seems to me that there are a great many thngs in our present and past that cant be explained by anthing else.  and to be perfectly honest, why should'nt we believe in magic?  There is no proof saying it doesnt exist, but on the other hand, scientists are proved wrong allllll the time!!!!!!!!!!

anyone agree?


----------



## kyektulu

*I totally agree with you Dragula, well said. 
*


----------



## Chabio

Magic is Black matter... for now.
It is a word that is used to label the unexplained, until a more precise word can be found.


----------



## Tau Zero

Is there magic?  It's simple enough to prove.  Have someone who claims to be capable of magic do something under controlled conditions.  

If they can, there's $1,000,000 US dollars awaiting them.  James Randi http://www.randi.org/ has that money set aside for anyone who can demonstrate any paranormal capability in their labs.  

Do you have paranormal or magical capabilities?  Then the money's yours for the taking.  Just show them waht you can do.  

The money is still available.  Case closed.


----------



## weaveworld

*This sounds really corny...

But you could say that magic is all around us, life, etc, just up to you the way you use it.
*


----------



## j d worthington

It depends on what you mean. As Plato insisted (and probably all those before him for a very long time): define your terms! If we're talking that sense of the mystical and the magical in an emotional reaction to certain phenomena or an overall experience of life, then yes, magic is all around us. If we're talking something that transcends "natural" law, i.e., physics, then once you start investigating, there has yet to be a single claim that can stand up to scrutiny. This does not invalidate anyone's feeling that they have encountered magic; it brings it down to an  epistemological rather than an ontological difference.

That said, I'm in agreement with most of a scientific bent: I'm open to evidence that this is wrong, but it's going to have to be put through the same severe scrutiny as any other claim before I can accept it as fact. Until then, it remains a wonderfully powerful emotional response to something that I treasure, but I see no reason to accept it as part of actual entity.


----------



## genisis2

Tau Zero said:
			
		

> Is there magic? It's simple enough to prove. Have someone who claims to be capable of magic do something under controlled conditions.
> 
> If they can, there's $1,000,000 US dollars awaiting them. James Randi http://www.randi.org/ has that money set aside for anyone who can demonstrate any paranormal capability in their labs.
> 
> Do you have paranormal or magical capabilities? Then the money's yours for the taking. Just show them waht you can do.
> 
> The money is still available. Case closed.


 
   Randi is amazing. Ive seen this guy disprove so many charlatans in the past.
   As for me I do not believe in magic of any kind but thats just my opinion and for those who do I would never to impose my beliefs on your faith in this matter. I do believe that all supernatural and occult do have scientific explanations.


----------



## star.torturer

a am the magic man the magic man of the underworld


----------



## Philip Harris

Not sure if anyone is still looking at this thread but I believe that we are on the cusp of a new age of magic-but of a different or rather explained in a different way. "In you mind" is where magic works and it DOES work-it is now called creating your own reality. "What The Bleep Do We Know" is worth watching to see how old and new magic REALLY works.


----------



## j d worthington

Except that "What the Bleep Do We Know" is full of pseudoscience mixed in with the real thing. The majority of the commentators in that film really don't have anything to do with the fields on which they pontificate (gee, this sounds familiar...), but the impression is given in the film that they do. It was also backed by a particular "New Age-ish" organization, in large part, and pretty much promotes their views. An interesting film, with some good food for thought -- but a very bad place to pick up information on what the real science is on all this; it still remains very doubtful that anything we would consider "magic" has any basis in physical fact, only in our perception of phenomena. It's old-style solipsism in a new coat, basically.


----------



## Sharukem

magic is quite possible, and there are religions that study magic but it is fo rthe envirnment and that religion is called the Wiccan religion. Not alot of people think that it is a real religion but it is very real, some of my friends are wiccan. and yes witches still exist but they dont always do spells. most don't even know how let alone most don't know that they are witches, or wizards. but as i said magic is very possible to do, you just need the right amount of spiritual energy inorder to do it properly.


----------



## carrie221

I think that there is magic we just don't understand it or use it most of the time


----------



## Saltheart

Magic is simply unexplainable phenomenon. Magic exists, and always will, because there will always be questions that Science has not found answers to. Suppose if Science was able to find out the mechanics of Astral Projection or Telepathy, would they still be called magical? No, because Science has explained the phenomenon: we know how they work, or at least have a unified, plausible theory that describes them. But for every answer Science finds, there are tons more questions formed, and therefore magic will always exist.


----------



## Loner

Philip Harris said:


> "In your mind" is where magic works and it DOES work-it is now called creating your own reality.



The human mind _is_ pretty amazing! And if magic can be worked anywhere, this is where to begin! Just change your mind about something and you will see your whole view of the world change in a way that seems magical.

I believe in magic because I _want_ it to be real. And if you believe something it _is_ real to _you_. Its all about perception.


----------



## dustinzgirl

I believe that magic is possible. I believe that it is not, really magic, but a focus of energies. Spells, charms and so forth only focus the energy of the caster/user, so there has to be an amount of true belief behind it. But, hey, you guys should know by now that I am a believer in a lot of things, which either makes me insane or dangerous or a combination of both. Having practiced the wiccan religion and dabbled in a bit of natural magic, I can say that I believe in quite a bit. Yes, I am a Christian now, but that was a personal choice I made. I do not discount witchraft, wicca, or elemental magic, demonicisms, or even posessesion as being non-existent because a few scientists can't figure out the math to them. And, yes, I think magic boils down to mathematics that we as humans can not comprehend. I don't think we have gotten that far, but in ancient times they discovered how it works. I also think that our 'fiction' has removed the belief because it is marketed as fiction---The Exorcism of Emily Rose comes to mind----and therefore removed our belief that it is possible and real.


----------



## Urien

There is no scientific evidence for magic. But many want it to be true. However, if one believes in a god or gods, you believe in magic.


----------



## dustinzgirl

andrew.v.spencer said:


> There is no scientific evidence for magic. But many want it to be true. However, if one believes in a god or gods, you believe in magic.



In my opinion, humanity should not be so arrogant to think that science is the only religion or belief.......

If we used to believe that the world was flat, and then we believed it was round, how can we be so arrogant as to believe that math and physics have all the answers? Because I'm pretty sure there is more to the universe than we can explain.....who knows, a thousand years from now we may discover alternate universes, or be able to use the power of our minds to control the physical world, or meet beings that are not physical in thier existence........


----------



## Gav

dustinzgirl said:


> In my opinion, humanity should not be so arrogant to think that science is the only religion or belief.......



Oh boy ...



> If we used to believe that the world was flat,


We didn't.  This is an urban myth. _clarification:  Or at least - not in the way you imply._



> and then we believed it was round,


Though the Earth is not a Sphere.  This is actually a fact - belief doesn't have to come into it.



> how can we be so arrogant as to believe that math and physics have all the answers? Because I'm pretty sure there is more to the universe than we can explain.....who knows, a thousand years from now we may discover alternate universes, or be able to use the power of our minds to control the physical world, or meet beings that are not physical in thier existence........


No scientist worth his/her/it's salt is going to tell you that science has all of the answers.  To think that it does would be foolish.  Our model of the universe should be considered to be a best estimate of our current understanding and no theory is 100% correct.  I believe that there is a [relatively] famous quote which runs along the lines:  "The very act of answering a question should raise new ones and so; the closer we get to the truth, the further away it is."  Or something like that.


----------



## SpaceShip

j. d. worthington said:


> It depends on what you mean. As Plato insisted (and probably all those before him for a very long time): define your terms! If we're talking that sense of the mystical and the magical in an emotional reaction to certain phenomena or an overall experience of life, then yes, magic is all around us. If we're talking something that transcends "natural" law, i.e., physics, then once you start investigating, there has yet to be a single claim that can stand up to scrutiny. This does not invalidate anyone's feeling that they have encountered magic; it brings it down to an epistemological rather than an ontological difference.
> 
> That said, I'm in agreement with most of a scientific bent: I'm open to evidence that this is wrong, but it's going to have to be put through the same severe scrutiny as any other claim before I can accept it as fact. Until then, it remains a wonderfully powerful emotional response to something that I treasure, but I see no reason to accept it as part of actual entity.


 
Brill j.d.  Magic!


----------



## Loner

It amazes me how humans can believe 9and discover) so many things they don't see with their own eyes. Not in a bad way. But just think, do you even know how your microwave works? How do you _know_ there are microwaves? Yes you could go to college and learn all about it ... There is so much knowledge out there that we can't possibly take it all in. We now have to take what we are told at face value because we don't have the time or skill to investigate things ourselves.
It must have been exciting during the Renaissance to be discovering so many of our now accepted sciences!
And we are still discovering more everyday -  ( check out String theory for example! It strongly suggests the existence of ten or eleven (in M-theory) spacetime dimensions, as opposed to the relativistic four (three spatial and time ~ Wikipedia). But there will always be more to know. And every discovery poses more questions.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Gav said:


> Oh boy ...
> 
> We didn't.  This is an urban myth. _clarification:  Or at least - not in the way you imply._
> 
> Though the Earth is not a Sphere.  This is actually a fact - belief doesn't have to come into it.
> 
> No scientist worth his/her/it's salt is going to tell you that science has all of the answers.  To think that it does would be foolish.  Our model of the universe should be considered to be a best estimate of our current understanding and no theory is 100% correct.  I believe that there is a [relatively] famous quote which runs along the lines:  "The very act of answering a question should raise new ones and so; the closer we get to the truth, the further away it is."  Or something like that.



Dude, you take me far to literally. Really. I'm not that explanatory, analytical, or resolution oriented. But hey, I have seen and felt things that boggle the mind, including 'psychic' connections with my siblings (we just KNOW, you know?), and once, Im pretty sure I saw an angel. But that was during my teenage years when I was on some pretty heavy drugs and practicing witchcraft in the most unchristian meaning of the word, so......

Look, all I'm saying is that we can not be so sure of ourselves to discount possibilities. Science doesn't have all the answers, and it never, ever, never will. And if you think science has all the answers, go divide by zero.


PS: The above comment makes me wonder if my microwave is posessed by demons. My burritoes exploded earlier...... 

/me GRIN!


----------



## Joel007

Magic is such a broad term these days. 
It could mean something that can't be explained, or it could be the act of a spirit affecting this world (technically the "good" ones are called miracles), or it could just be the definition of all that lies loosely defined quite happily within fiction.


----------



## Saltheart

dustinzgirl said:


> Look, all I'm saying is that we can not be so sure of ourselves to discount possibilities. Science doesn't have all the answers, and it never, ever, never will. And if you think science has all the answers, go divide by zero



Science doesn't claim to have the answers; science has all the tested theories. Everything found by science is a theory. The only true thing that can ever be 100% true is math, because math was invented by man and it isn't about theorizing like science: with math, it is possible to postulate; with science, all you can do is theorize and hope it stands up to scrutiny.

But anyway, whoever says that science has all the right answers is wrong: science has testable and vertified theories, not answers. The only thing that can give answers is math. Science, like religion, requires faith: it requires that you have faith in theories that hold up to scrutiny.

Anybody who claims to have an answer to anything that is not mathematically postulated is a liar: he/she only has a theory that seems about right.


----------



## Specfiction

I think the problem here is that some misunderstand what science is. Science is not saying you know something, science is the process of acquiring knowledge. At the heart of the process of science are doubt, critical thinking, experiment, and reproducibility by ones peers. Faith and Science are dialectic opposites. Science is based on proof. Faith is acceptance of something "without" proof. The only real assumption that science makes is that there exists an objective reality separate from the subjective reality of humans. A graphic example of what objective reality is, is that reality that existed before there were humans on Earth, which is 99% of the time the Earth has been around; and by extension, the reality that will exist when humans no longer exist.

Arrogance is thinking that we can believe in something without proof and that this power of belief somehow makes it real. This has been a source of much failure and suffering for humanity, and may indicate a basic flaw in the way that we think, i.e. in order to relate to the world we feel it necessary to anthropomorphize it.


----------



## steve12553

If Magic were (or is) true, you'd have to prove it. I believe that would redefine it as Science. So......... it's probably best to believe (or not) but certainly don't question. Remember what it took to save Tinkerbelle.


----------



## j d worthington

Specfiction said:


> I think the problem here is that some misunderstand what science is. Science is not saying you know something, science is the process of acquiring knowledge. At the heart of the process of science are doubt, critical thinking, experiment, and reproducibility by ones peers. Faith and Science are dialectic opposites. Science is based on proof. Faith is acceptance of something "without" proof. The only real assumption that science makes is that there exists an objective reality separate from the subjective reality of humans. A graphic example of what objective reality is, is that reality that existed before there were humans on Earth, which is 99% of the time the Earth has been around; and by extension, the reality that will exist when humans no longer exist.
> 
> Arrogance is thinking that we can believe in something without proof and that this power of belief somehow makes it real. This has been a source of much failure and suffering for humanity, and may indicate a basic flaw in the way that we think, i.e. in order to relate to the world we feel it necessary to anthropomorphize it.


 
Bravo! This sums up the dichotomy quite eloquently (and well)!


----------



## mosaix

Specfiction said:


> I think the problem here is that some misunderstand what science is. Science is not saying you know something, science is the process of acquiring knowledge. At the heart of the process of science are doubt, critical thinking, experiment, and reproducibility by ones peers. Faith and Science are dialectic opposites. Science is based on proof. Faith is acceptance of something "without" proof. The only real assumption that science makes is that there exists an objective reality separate from the subjective reality of humans. A graphic example of what objective reality is, is that reality that existed before there were humans on Earth, which is 99% of the time the Earth has been around; and by extension, the reality that will exist when humans no longer exist.
> 
> Arrogance is thinking that we can believe in something without proof and that this power of belief somehow makes it real. This has been a source of much failure and suffering for humanity, and may indicate a basic flaw in the way that we think, i.e. in order to relate to the world we feel it necessary to anthropomorphize it.



I agree with JD, this is an excellent post.


----------



## skizmor

I have met people with the power of gods. They can speak across oceans, fly higher than the clouds and see into the future. 

They call it a phone, an aeroplane and a weather forecast.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

A lot of people are using the word "believe" in this thread...


----------



## A_J_Lath

Recently, I dated a lady who professed herself a witch, and who cast spells and that, no less!

She told me about how she'd use some sort of magical healing ability on a friend who was suffering a bad headache. Apparently, it worked! 'I mean, she had taken some paracetamol,' she let slip, 'but I'm pretty sure it was my spell that cured her.'

Hmmm. The words 'bias' and 'confirmation' quickly sprang to mind. I didn't say anything though, because I fancied her a bit.

Personally, I see enough magic in the everyday world as it is: aurorae, green fireball meteors, striking sunsets and good books that take you out of yourself. As Douglas Adams said: 'Isn't it enough to know that the garden is beautiful without needing to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'


----------



## Moonbat

Even something as simple as magic has differing definitions, from the wand waving spells of Harry Potter (almost certainly doesn't exist) to the herbal charms of Wicca (probably as potent as Homeopathy) and the Aesthetically pleasing views of the garden (nothing magic about nature, just very pretty)

I find this ambiguity similar to some definitions of God, Personally i'm an agnostic leaning towrds atheism, but it transfers to this discussion. I have read many books on such things and they often admit there is no 'Magic' to their beliefs, just faith and a lot of positive thinking. 

I'm not sure what power faith has? Is it a form of gambling?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

A_J_Lath said:


> As Douglas Adams said: 'Isn't it enough to know that the garden is beautiful without needing to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'


Are you insinuating that fairies _don't_ exist..? 'Cause that's crazy talk...


----------



## Urien

Ah... but how do you _know_ it's beautiful?


----------



## Starbeast

"Is magic possible?"



It is for me because I am a magician (not professional), however I consider it illusion, like card tricks, making small things disappear and pulling coins out of people's ears ect. I enjoy entertaining people just for fun, some of the tricks that I do are so convicing that they have people believe it is real magic. But, my "magic" mentor told me that a magician never discloses secrets, cause everbody likes things that are mysterious.
Rest in peace Mr Blackwell.


----------



## chrispenycate

I will go out on a limb and assert that no, it isn't possible.

Everything that is possible is not magic, but that "sufficiently advanced technology", which is supposed indistinguishable from it. Magic is, by its very nature (or super or anti - nature) impossible; when it becomes psionics or something similar, and starts to obey the laws of physics a bit, it ceases being magic and becomes pseudoscience, or worse.

Which is not to say magic shouldn't have its own laws; unlimited magic (like any unbounded force) makes for very short stories ("I don't like this situation," quoth the Mage. Poof. Next book.) But if it stays within the standard set of possibles, it's not magic.


----------



## J Riff

Not for us to know.  But how does telepathy differ from having a cellphone implanted in your head ? I suppose, in telepathy, you actually see and feel and _are_ the other person ...which would be distracting if you were driving, say, so maybe it's over-rated. )


----------



## Boneman

50 years ago, it would be considered magic if you could whirl magnets around people, and polarize all their cells, then sent a pulse through them so you could actually produce pictures of any part of the body!!! Nowadays it's an MRI scanner... 

So Magic does exist, but it's relative to knowledge... Love is magic, and we all accept that, don't we?


----------



## zhefa

From my experience and some research into this kind of stuff in my country, I find out that some supernatural power or as well called, magic is somehow something more advance than modern technology can comprehend.

My own assumption is that it is something to do with the state of mind which I think is in our brain itself. With strong willpower, one can open parts of our brain that is normally closed and emit low magnetic or electronic forces which then interacts with other things in many ways. When one's mind is focused enough, something beyond normal comprehension can happen. 

There is many evidence about meditation that lead to seeing into the past or the future, creating miracles such as levitating or flying. And there are some dark magic practices around here where I live although now only a few is left with this knowledge nowadays. It tends to fade away as new technology and science argues that those things are not impossible and people did not believe in those old practices.


----------



## Dave

I think it is all in the "mind".

I think there may be mental powers that we have not yet discovered or analysed scientifically. You must have had an occasion when you suddenly and expectantly thought of a person with whom you have had no contact and then the telephone rings immediately. I cannot explain those instances unless there was some kind of telepathic connection. It is way too much of a coincidence, but then Deja-vu is meant to be simply a construct of a trick of memory, so why not this also.

The brain does not tell us exactly what our senses sense. It certainly does not tell us what our primary sense; our eyes, actually "see". The brain makes guesses (sometimes bad ones) to fill in the gaps. That is exactly why illusions, slight of hand, and stage tricks work. It is also why we "see" human faces in frying pans, toast and Martian landscapes. So, we can't really trust how our brains interpret things. They see order and make connections where none really exist because they like order and connections - they are programmed to find that.

Faith and will-power are also incredibly powerful. Otherwise, how can you explain miracles of walking invalids and re-sighted blind people. I don't think all these documented cases are cons and scams. People can do amazing, impossible things if they really want to. How do you explain fire-walking, for instance?

And I agree with others that there are many things called magic which are just things we cannot yet explain scientifically. It doesn't make them magic, it just makes them unexplained. Many people don't like unexplained things, so they they pretend they don't exist. Ball Lightening has been seen by too many people for it to be dismissed away, as it has been for years. However, a recent report by Austrian scientists said that it too, was simply a construct of our minds caused by powerful rapidly changing magnetic fields, producing eddy currents in our brains:
Slashdot Science Story | Ball Lightning Caused By Magnetic Hallucinations


----------



## Interference

The question has to come down to "How much of reality is a product of our combined associative perceptions?"


----------



## zhefa

Maybe in the future, when the secret of our body and mind is unlocked, we will see people using telekinesis, telepathy or doing something people today can't.


----------



## Interference

The fundament of all existence is energy and energy has vibrational frequencies.  All we need to learn is how to resonate with each of those frequencies and we would understand everything


----------



## mygoditsraining

I think humanity will discover magic the very same day it rids itself of the sadistic, venal streak that encourages people to profit off of one another's weaknesses.

Take from that what you will.  To quote the Isha Upanishad, we live in a demon-haunted world; there are regions of utter darkness.  In my experience we are the demons, and the darkness is within us.

Until every charlatan who professes to have psychic power, healing magic or other supernatural abilities is exposed and rightly ridiculed for misleading the people they routinely con, then humanity can't even start to study the potential of extranormal abilities - simply because of the massive background of snake-oil salesmen trying to lever in on the act.


----------



## Tinsel

kyektulu said:


> *I am in the middle of a debate with a friend at the moment, we are disscussing is magic possible in todays world?
> Civilisation has believed in the power of magic for thousands of years and it has always been a big part of culture untill modern times.
> There are still witches today. I am not talking of the hag faced fly on a broomstick type but there are people out there who call themselves witches and perform magickal rituals and in the voodoo religion there are still shamens and popularity of these examples are rising in todays hectic culture.
> I have been into the occult for many many years and although I do tend to study more than practice. I do perform spells on occasion. Good luck charms, spells for health and wellbeing that type of thing.
> I honestly feel that they have helped and I have had positive results.
> Or in your opinion is this all in my mind?
> My friend seems to think so but I believe otherwise there are many things that are possible if we only open our minds and except that there are things out there that cannot be explained by modern science.
> 
> *



My guess is that magic is more possible for some people rather than other people, just like many other things. I've had experiences with spirits, but I've never done any magic. I didn't exactly ask for that to happen but it appears that there are spirits and quite a number of oddities. Now magic is definitely something that you have to try out by performing rituals of some kind, it probably can't hurt to try it as long as you don't get into the sacrifices area and other dark areas unless all magic naturally end up there, but that is probably not the case. If it improves your character it is a fine thing to do and it sounds interesting. I myself wouldn't mind seeing these practitioners, especially the fully immersed ones, but I can't say that I have known many.


----------



## The_African

As a materialist, I don't think that it is. Magic is fun as far as stories are concerned, but I prefer the material explanation for the universe that science offers.


----------



## Tinsel

The closest writing that I see related to magic is H.P. Lovecraft's short stories. That one story "The Picture in the House" mentions the cannibal group in the Congo that might have practiced voodoo magic but just the idea that that guy was eating people and gaining longer life from it was quite a story. There's a lot of general pagan discussion in his stories as well and human physical transformation into animals which is related to witchcraft. They are well written and generally light, but odd such as the happenings in "The Dunwich Horror".


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

Actually, it's hard to say what's technically possible and what isn't. I think the closest we can actually have to "magic" is potion alchemy. And that's not really magic at all.

Now, using technology to achieve what magic generally does in stories is another matter, but that again is science, not magic.


What magic actually is is any event or performance that science cannot actually explain. For example, someone manages to change the weather in a way that can't be explained-that's magic. Any action that cannot be explained.


There are eventual explanations for everything. Hence, nothing is actual magic.


----------



## Orionis

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> Actually, it's hard to say what's technically possible and what isn't. I think the closest we can actually have to "magic" is potion alchemy. And that's not really magic at all.
> 
> Now, using technology to achieve what magic generally does in stories is another matter, but that again is science, not magic.
> 
> 
> What magic actually is is any event or performance that science cannot actually explain. For example, someone manages to change the weather in a way that can't be explained-that's magic. Any action that cannot be explained.
> 
> 
> There are eventual explanations for everything. Hence, nothing is actual magic.


 
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Even if someone was to produce a dragon out of thin air there would have to be a scientific explanation within the realms of quantum mechanics and nanophysics that would allow it to happen.

Three thousand years ago the common masses thought movement created by magnets were "magic" but now magnets are about as magic as a can of beans.


----------



## Rand

Orionis said:


> I agree with this wholeheartedly. Even if someone was to produce a dragon out of thin air there would have to be a scientific explanation within the realms of quantum mechanics and nanophysics that would allow it to happen.
> 
> Three thousand years ago the common masses thought movement created by magnets were "magic" but now magnets are about as magic as a can of beans.



Has anyone already posted the Clarke quote that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?

Doesn't really matter what it's called or how it's explained.  By the time you get to multidimensional quantum mechanics and string theory, or even something as simple as postulating and demonstrating that the observer influences the observed, you're talking magic in a new suit.


----------



## Tinsel

The psychics are not as convincing as the magicians, and the magicians are not as convincing as the wizards or the undead.


----------



## Boneman

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> Actually, it's hard to say what's technically possible and what isn't. I think the closest we can actually have to "magic" is potion alchemy. And that's not really magic at all.
> 
> Now, using technology to achieve what magic generally does in stories is another matter, but that again is science, not magic.
> 
> 
> What magic actually is is any event or performance that science cannot actually explain. For example, someone manages to change the weather in a way that can't be explained-that's magic. Any action that cannot be explained.
> 
> 
> There are eventual explanations for everything. Hence, nothing is actual magic.


 

Like Homoeopathy???


----------



## Interference

Boneman said:


> Like Homoeopathy???



Mind over matter, I'm afraid.  Very pedestrian when you get down to it.


----------



## kcartlidge

kyektulu said:


> I am in the middle of a debate with a friend at the moment, we are disscussing is magic possible in todays world?



Yes, it is.


----------



## Vertigo

Interference said:


> Mind over matter, I'm afraid. Very pedestrian when you get down to it.


 
Similarly faith healing - a (fairly) recent experiment had an actor study a faith healer and then did his own "faith healing". His results were as good (slightly better I think) than the original faith healer. Conclusion was that so long as you could get the patient to believe in you, they believed you were healing them and effectively healed themselves. I think many other studies have come to the same conclusion with these kinds of "healing". Maybe you could argue that there is something "magic" about that .

Lets face it there are plenty of things out there that we have yet to discover and explain. For example, we have not yet figured out why the Universe's expansion is accelerating. The physicists have come up with things like dark matter and dark energy but actually when pressed they are basically unknown stuff that they have plugged into their equations to make them work. Does that make them magic; no, just stuff we haven't figured out yet, that's all.


----------



## Interference

I like to think that the Universe is expanding faster because of the increase in and expansion of consciousness.  I may write that story one day, too


----------



## Vertigo

Interference said:


> I like to think that the Universe is expanding faster because of the increase in and expansion of consciousness. I may write that story one day, too


 
Nice idea - all that hot air blowing it up


----------



## Interference

With localised accelerated expansion around the seats of power


----------



## Vertigo

Seats being the operative word


----------



## Interference

Which also explains why the Universe is getting smellier at an accelerated rate


----------



## Vertigo

Certainly our little corner of it at any rate . This is all very naughty dragging things off thread like this


----------



## Interference

Soz 


.....


----------



## John Thiel

It depends on how you define magic.  I refer you back to the definition Walt Disney presented of magic.  He said TV itself was, for all intents and purposes, magic.


----------



## Deathpool

nixie said:


> I would like to believe in magic.The rational part of me says its not possible,but then there is that little voice who tells me anything's possible.There is enough mystery in the world that can't be explained away by science,do maybe magic is feasible.


 
The Burmuda Triangle seems to be unexplainable, but i'm not totally sure. Possibly there's magic at work there.


----------



## John Thiel

"There is no magic" supposes that science is not just a part of reality but rather something that constitutes reality and rules over all---that it is something other than a point of view or an approach to things. There is a confusion here known to the magical viewpoint. Reality is a philosophical term, not a scientific one.

Magic must be accepted in order to exist.


----------



## ktabic

Deathpool said:


> The Burmuda Triangle seems to be unexplainable, but i'm not totally sure. Possibly there's magic at work there.



The Bermuda Triangle is perfectly easily explainable. With statistics. Basically, it doesn't exist.

Both the US Coast Guard and Lloyds of London have looked in detail, and independently of each other, at the rates of ship loss in the Bermuda region. They both have reasons for needing to know if there is anything real about the Bermuda Triangle. 
The Coastguard would need more ships, in order to perform rescue missions, and Lloyds of London, who insure most of the worlds shipping need to know if there is a higher risk so they can charge higher premiums. 

The result from both are stunningly similar. The Bermuda Triangle is a high traffic area. And the rate of lost ships in the Bermuda Triangle is the same as pretty much everywhere else. The Bermuda Triangle effect is simply down to the fact that there is so much sea traffic in the area that there appears to be a higher loss rate, when it's really just average.


----------



## Michael01

Rand said:


> By the time you get to multidimensional quantum mechanics and string theory, or even something as simple as postulating and demonstrating that the observer influences the observed, you're talking magic in a new suit.


 
Exactly. Might be a completely unconventional use, but in my mind magic and science are the same thing. Do I think there are faeries under the flowers? No...but the flowers themselves are still magical. The simple fact that anything exists at all, when it could just as easily not exist, is magical.

So I'm saying magic does not have to be unexplainable. Magic is divine, everything is divine, and any description or explanation we develop of nature is therefore a description of the divine.

This is where I differ from those who adhere to Intelligent Design theory. I actually think the naturalist theory is very close (nothing is 100%, of course), but I think the naturalist theory is a description of part of divinity (not necessarily all). This divinity might be a designer, or it might be evolving, or both (to some degree).

None of this has to mean people can form fireballs by willpower alone and toss them at each other in magical duels. We don't have to go that far. The fact that I am sitting here and typing this post is magical enough.

In short, it's all the same to me.


----------



## Deathpool

ktabic said:


> The Bermuda Triangle is perfectly easily explainable. With statistics. Basically, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Both the US Coast Guard and Lloyds of London have looked in detail, and independently of each other, at the rates of ship loss in the Bermuda region. They both have reasons for needing to know if there is anything real about the Bermuda Triangle.
> The Coastguard would need more ships, in order to perform rescue missions, and Lloyds of London, who insure most of the worlds shipping need to know if there is a higher risk so they can charge higher premiums.
> 
> The result from both are stunningly similar. The Bermuda Triangle is a high traffic area. And the rate of lost ships in the Bermuda Triangle is the same as pretty much everywhere else. The Bermuda Triangle effect is simply down to the fact that there is so much sea traffic in the area that there appears to be a higher loss rate, when it's really just average.


 
Actually that's not correct. I have an entire book on the Burmuda triangle and done a bit of studying over the internet. Flight 19 is still a mystery today. They found Avengers at the bottom of the ocean but they found out that they were Avengers dumped after the war. To this day Flight 19 is still lost. It's a complete mystery. Also there are strange magnetic fluctuations in the Burmuda Triangle that occure nowhere else in the world. They were experienced pilots. Not tranees. They weren't drunk. Also the navy sent a plane after them to rescue them and it never returned. In fact there's a person that claims to be an expert on the Burmuda Triangle but he gets even basic Geography wrong. It's possible that it is a hoax, but I'm not so sure. The study they did only involve large craft. There are plenty of small craft that go missing that aren't reported. Also the Flight 19 pilots reported that the sky and water didn't look as it should and that their instruments had been malfunctioning. Another thing about Flight 19 is that they could float for one minute, but the crew were trained to avacuate in thirty seconds. There was no lifre raft found either. The Martiner Mariner was plane that went after them and it's an amphibious arcraft. There have also been aircraft and boats who have reported unexplainable dead batteries after returning home. I suggest you do a bit of research into the Burmuda Triangle. What I'm after is the truth, but what bothers me is that I have no way of knowing who's telling the truth and who isn't. I prefer to find out for myself. It would be far easier if I could read minds.


----------



## Michael01

Nowhere else in the world? What about the Dragon's Triangle in the Pacific?

Besides, magnetic fluctuations _could be_ the result of a natural phenomenon that we just don't understand yet. We'll see... (probably long after I'm dead, unfortunately).


----------



## sloweye

All in all, i think the triangle's thing is lost in this thread, the triangle is a phenomenon where as magic is elemental manipulation, i don't see that someone in the region of the triangle is waiting there to make ships/planes vanish.


----------



## John Thiel

Actually, there shouldn't be _any _ships lost anywhere.  Think what it would be like to be on a ship that's lost.  Perhaps ship loss is a warfare statistic.

The Bermuda triangle seems to cross science and magic.  A triangle is scientific, but magic is interested in the triangular concept in the matter of the Bermuda Triangle. Perhaps it should be called the Bermuda Pentagram. That, too, mixes science and magic. What, out there, is triangular?  Apparently this is a cardiographic reference.


----------



## sloweye

No, i have to disagree whole heartedly. I see no ancient myth telling of a grand magician standing on a beach declairing ships will vanish.
The Bermuda *triangle*. the Pentagram is a symbol which has as much importance to pagan religions as the cross does to christians.


----------



## Michael01

I guess that depends on how you define magic. In some stories, spells make use of "magical energy." You can define "magic" as either the manipulation of that energy (by a grand magician or whatever) or the energy itself - or both.

You could also define it as the discipline that studies and attempts to explain (and perhaps make practical use of) magical energy, making it very similar to science (similar objectives, different methods?). In that case, the phenomena that occur in the Triangles are neither. Science and/or magic are merely the disciplines that attempt to describe (and perhaps harness) the forces at work.


----------



## sloweye

My point being the Triangle is a natural phenomenon.
Magic is indeed science of sorts, though it predates what we know a science. Just wish the pentagram wasn't thrown around so much 
(BTW, i'm a practicing witch  )


----------



## Michael01

sloweye said:


> (BTW, i'm a practicing witch  )


 
Cool! I'm non-traditional, so I find that perfectly acceptable..._and_ awesome.


----------



## John Thiel

Would being a black hole or singularity existing on Earth be a scientific explanation of the disappearing ships in the Bermuda triangle?


----------



## sloweye

I think they would have found that in all the years they have been investigating the area, plus, there ar many ships/planes that pass through and over the area without vanishing.
There are no doubt threads somewhere that cover the triangle, try a search.


----------



## chrispenycate

John Thiel said:


> Would being a black hole or singularity existing on Earth be a scientific explanation of the disappearing ships in the Bermuda triangle?


No. A black hole on or near Earth's surface, even a very small one would cause effects that would be visible from orbit, while one near the core the geography over it would be irrelevant.

A magnetic anomaly might have lost some ships and/or planes in the age of magnetic compasses, but not of satellite navigation. A very large kraken? A dimensional link to a parallel continuum? Magic sounds better than that.


----------



## sloweye

> A very large kraken?



 hahahaha  or nessy on her hol's


----------



## Michael01

chrispenycate said:


> A very large kraken? A dimensional link to a parallel continuum? Magic sounds better than that.


 
Yeah. Okay, then. It must be magic.


----------



## Deathpool

I had the stupid idea that maybe it was a force we haven't discovered yet. Maybe a force that bound the dimensions of Time Space so they wouldn't separate. A stupid idea I realize now.


----------



## ktabic

Deathpool said:


> Flight 19 is still a mystery today.



Only if you want it to be. But the evidence points to it being a mundane tragedy. 



Deathpool said:


> They found Avengers at the bottom of the ocean but they found out that they were Avengers dumped after the war.



They also found entirely different crashed Avengers, but that is not surprising since between 1943 and 45, 95 people lost their lives flying training missions out of Fort Lauderdale. 



Deathpool said:


> To this day Flight 19 is still lost. It's a complete mystery.



Repeating that it is a mystery doesn't make it so. Helpful hint when reading mystery stuff. 



Deathpool said:


> Also there are strange magnetic fluctuations in the Burmuda Triangle that occure nowhere else in the world.



Doubtful. Very, very doubtful. If there where things that occurred there and no where else, the scientists would be all over it looking for the causes. They aren't.



Deathpool said:


> They were experienced pilots. Not tranees.



*Cough* training mission *cough*
Four _student_ pilots, one instructor. Not quite _experienced_. A note for later: the four students had not been trained in night flying.



Deathpool said:


> They weren't drunk.


There is some evidence that the instructor and flight commander, Lt Charles Carroll Taylor, may have been hungover. So not drunk as such.
There's some interesting bits about Lt Charles Taylor. 
On the day that Flight 19 was lost, the Lt was late. And when he did turn up, he requested to be taken of the flight. When he wouldn't give a reason, he was told no.
The Lt was a war vet. He had seen combat and had even lost his plane three times during the war. Once he even lost it because of the enemy. The other two times where because he got lost flying back to the carrier. Opps, beginning to seeing a bit of a pattern here. 
Another point conveniently ignored most of the time: the students had flown this mission route before. The instructor had not. He had only recently transferred in, from the Keys.

Due to his lateness, Flight 19 was 25 minutes late taking off. They took of at about 2:10pm. On a day when nightfall was due about 5:30, and the official weather reports state Stormy. The mission should have taken about 3-3 1/2 hours. So they should have been back before it got to dark. 

Part way through the mission, the Lt convinced himself that he was somewhere over the Florida Keys, away from where he actually was, near Bahama. By the time Flight 19 went down, they where over 500 miles off course. Because the students obeyed the instructor (sadly, one of the students figured out how to get back to land. Lt Taylor then ordered the flight to fly in almost the opposite direction for 45 minutes. Had they did what the student said, they would have made it to Florida.)



Deathpool said:


> Also the navy sent a plane after them to rescue them and it never returned.



That would be because it blew up. Although you if ignore the reports from two ships in the area, the USS Solomon (who reported the radar contact with the Merlin disappeared) and the Tanker SS Gaines Mills (quote from their official report:  "At 1950, observed a burst of flames, apparently an explosion, leaping  flames 100 feet high and burning for ten minutes. Position 28 degrees 59  minutes north, 80 degrees 25 minutes west. At present, passing through a  big pool of oil. Stopped, circled area using searchlights, looking for  survivors. None found."), I suppose you could say it went missing in mysterious circumstances.

Occam's Razor time. I'm going with blew up.



Deathpool said:


> Also the Flight 19 pilots reported that the sky and water didn't look as it should and that their instruments had been malfunctioning.



That is because they where lost. There was nothing wrong with their instruments, they just couldn't match up their instruments with where they thought they where. If you read the transcripts of the radio chatter between Flight 19, Lt Fox and Lauderdale, you would notice one thing: they where pretty certain their compasses where right.

One of the big mysteries of Flight 19 is why most of the writers ignore the single most important piece of equipment, the one that proves Flight 19 where way off course. The Avengers had IFF. When Lt Taylor finally (after being ordered several times) turned it on, the Navy started tracking Flight 19 with RDF. It was primitive stuff, compared to what we have now. But with it they could triangulate the position of the flight.
At this point, 20 stations up the Florida coast are locating him with RDF kit (manually have to calibrate bearings amongst the stations by phone). Oh, and 20 stations now know that Taylor is hopelessly lost, since he is still convinced he's near the Florida Keys and they have him flying north in the Atlantic.
The Navy knows, to within 100 miles , where Flight 19 went down (not very accurate, but had Lt Taylor bothered turning it on when he was first told to, they might have been able to get him flying in the right direction).



Deathpool said:


> Another thing about Flight 19 is that they could float for one minute, but the crew were trained to avacuate in thirty seconds. There was no lifre raft found either.



"Stormy seas." In fact, according to a British tanker that was in the area Flight 19 ditched, there where termendous seas and very high winds. Not a very good place to ditch.



Deathpool said:


> The Martiner Mariner was plane that went after them and it's an amphibious arcraft.



Being amphibious doesn't help if it's a plummeting ball of fire.



Deathpool said:


> I suggest you do a bit of research into the Burmuda Triangle. What I'm after is the truth



I did. Quite a few years ago.

You want the truth? Read the reports. Here's a nice fact that rarely makes it into the books on Bermuda Triangle: The Navy original report concluded that Flight 19 was lost due to pilot error. That is probably because they knew that Taylor thought he was at least 700 miles from where he was. And that he thought he was on the other side of Florida. They changed the finding to 'cause unknown' becuase of protests from the commanders family.



Deathpool said:


> but what bothers me is that I have no way of knowing who's telling the truth and who isn't. I prefer to find out for myself. It would be far easier if I could read minds.



Go to the original reports. Request the findings from the Navy Read the weather reports and news reports of the day. They aren't classified. 

There is lots and lots more I could have written here. But it's getting quite long already.


----------



## John Thiel

Seems like you have a pretty good idea for a story there.


----------



## Michael01

Although it's waaaayyyy off topic.

The question is: Is magic possible? I suppose "Is the Bermuda Triangle a mystery or not?" could be a question for a different thread.

On the other hand, since I've been the contributor to derails on at least a few occasions, I really have no room to talk.


----------



## sloweye

> Although it's waaaayyyy off topic.



I did try the gentle nudge back to topic, a couple of times.... i'll give the hob-nail boot method next time


----------



## skeptical

I am jumping in here, and I have been too lazy to read all 115 posts so far, so if I repeat someone else's idea, I apologise.

I am, ha ha, a sceptical person.  However, I also love scifi and fantasy.  This creates a conflict.  How can I read about something I know is utter rubbish, and impossible according to the laws of physics?

I apply a small mental trick.   I assume that the universe is just one of a multitude.  After all, super-string theory predicts E500 universes (that is : 1 followed by 500 zeroes).  I also assume that each universe has different scientific laws.   This is actually predicted by some theories.

Thus, if I am reading, say, the Lord of the Rings, I assume it takes place in another universe, in which the laws of physics are a bit different and permit that type of magic.

So my answer is that magic is possible, but not in our universe.   Feel free to read and tell magical stories, assuming they take place 'elsewhere'.


----------



## John Thiel

"Sceptic" is a scientific term, but labels a state of mind, which is magical rather than scientific. A magical response to this is to say that I am skeptical of science. Are its principles always sound, do we not find scientists having to revise their thoughts at intervals, can science achieve the results it visualizes, in the process of experimentation are some lives lost, can it bring about human happiness?  This is the magical reaction to science, unless it is a midway form of reasoning.


----------



## Junsui0110

I happen to picture magic like a giant cotton blanket that exists everywhere. Say it's completely flat, except where various life forces exist.
The more "in tune" with this force a being is, the bigger the indention will be made on the blankets surface. The less in tune, of course, would probably make very little impact on this blanket.  ( I also picture gravity this way, except planets and stars take the place of life forms and/or objects. )
Objects and places, I picture as tangles in the thread of this blanket. 
Whether we are able to influence this blanket of power or not, I am sure it exists. 

I'm not sure i explained my thoughts very well. It's still kind of a rough draft in my head, so i'm sure it will be refined as time goes by.


----------



## Null_Zone

ktabic said:


> Doubtful. Very, very doubtful. If there where things that occurred there and no where else, the scientists would be all over it looking for the causes. They aren't.


 
There is one magnetic anomoly in the area the flight dissapeared. It's one those areas where true north and magnetic north are the same. The sort of thing that confuses pilots new to the area that haven't undergone proper orientation.


----------



## mdlachlan

Hope no one has posted this before but:

"... imagination acts upon man as really as does gravitation, and may kill him as certainly as a dose of prussic acid."-Sir James Frazer,The Golden Bough

The conception of magic in fantasy novels is often very far removed from how it appears in real world traditions. There's no evidence of real magicians trying to throw fireballs or - as far as I know - turn people into toads. It seems to divide into two broad areas:

1 Magic that effects the external world.

2 Magic that effects the self.

I have no doubt that both are possible. But both can be rationally explained, so whether this leaves them as 'magic' is open to question. I would say that it does in their own cultural context, which after all is the only arena that many of them work. It doesn't looked at another way.

I think there's no doubt some spells can work - both beneficial and hostile. However, they won't work outside of their cultural context. If you believe the Voodoo priest can curse and sicken you and you hear that he has done so - or even if you don't hear it but you detect a change in attitude from those who have - I think something akin to the placebo effect can cause real illness - if only from the anxiety provoked.

Similarly I've no doubt that shamanic, Yogic, hermit and other esoteric practices produce real effects on their practitioners. I suppose the interpretation of those effects - whether you call them straightforward hallucination or magical insight determines if they're magic or not. As science has done away with the idea that there is one single world there to be perceived I think it has - very oddly - moves us nearer the idea of labelling these experiences magical insight. If there's no 'right' perception then the only thing that privileges one perception over another is its usefulness. The 'magical' reality of drugs like Ibogaine would seem to be very useful to addict patients - though hard clinical evidence is needed to back up the anecdotal reports. In an ibogaine trip the user encounters and ancestor, works through problems and the addiction leaves him or her.
Again, science might explain this but the drug at least offers an insight into the symbolic constructions of the human brain. And that has got to look a lot like magic. I don't think you can necessarily say an experience isn't magical just because science can explain it.

Beyond this we move into the realms of group hallucination, shared magical experiences. Again, I think human experience is full of examples of this and I think exactly how they work is poorly understood.

Magic's absolutely central to my writing and I try to use these real world experiences as a jumping off point because it's more satisfying - to me - to have magic that speaks to something that has been so central to humanity throughout history, rather than having people fling lightning bolts about. That said, I don't mind the odd lightning bolt in other people's stories!


----------



## skeptical

md

The reverse placebo is called a nocebo, and it is very real.   People can be given a harmless cup of tea, and told after they have consumed it, that it contained poison.   The result is real illness - the nocebo effect.  Voodoo curses work this way.   I assume that this is what you were talking about?


----------



## John Thiel

I see you are a writer from the fact that you used a book cover from your writing as an avatar, and from subsequently looking at your profile.  I might say that from reading your posting, I would pick up your book and read it if it were on the bookstore shelves.  That is, I would also purchase it.  I think you have a highly intelligent summary of the topic there.  I've been thinking someone could go over the whole topic thus far and do an interesting essay based upon it.  That's somewhat what you have, looking at all the angles and perspectives.  You have the pros and cons very well weighed up.

Not exactly wanting to mention it, but there are unusual grammatical errors in your posting.  I'm surprised that these would be in the posting of a person who is a writer, or even a writer of postings.  I really cannot see how these would be accounted for, not that there's good word order in the statement I just made, either.


----------



## sloweye

MD, good to see someone with some understanding of the subject getting  the thresd back on track. I'd agree with nearly all of what was said  there.



> *JT: *Not exactly wanting to mention it, but there are unusual grammatical  errors in your posting.  I'm surprised that these would be in the  posting of a person who is a writer, or even a writer of postings.  I  really cannot see how these would be accounted for, not that there's  good word order in the statement I just made, either.


When did this thread become part of the critique forum? 



> *Skeptical*: .  Voodoo curses work this way.



True, but not always. As any one using this method will tell you, you have to pick and choose carefuly who you try this with. It will ony work on the impressionable mind, those of week will. Voodoo is about the theatrical.


----------



## mdlachlan

Yes, the nocebo as you call it is a noted effect. If you're interested in this sort of thing I would recommend The Golden Bough - though it can be hard going. The full version is an enormous work of scholarship. Frazer calls this sort of magic 'sympathetic magic'.
A flavour of what you might be in for is here:
'If we analyze the principles of thought on which magic is based, they will probably be found to resolve themselves into two: first, that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause; and, second, that things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed. The former principle may be called the Law of Similarity, the latter the Law of Contact or Contagion. From the first of these principles, namely the Law of Similarity, the magician infers that he can produce any effect he desires merely by imitating it: from the second he infers that whatever he does to a material object will affect equally the person with whom the object was once in contact, whether it formed part of his body or no'

John, it was late at night, I mixed up effect and affect, I said 'them' when I meant 'it', I used too many hyphens in one sentence, I said 'and' when I meant 'an', all sorts of atrocities were committed.
What can I tell you? If I was being paid to post on here, I'd proof read. As I'm not, I think 'oh well'. 
That said, I am something of a pedant and so my inability to correct these mistakes is driving me nuts. So, perhaps appropriately to a thread on magic, you have cast the Spell of Midnight Wakefulness on me. Thanks.


----------



## sloweye

As i mentioned earlier in the thread i'm a practicing witch so the bough was early reading for me, although i could do with another look over it, it was a while ago.

I'm used to having my spelling/gramma pulled apart on the forums as i'm the resident dyslexic, it dose me good as i have to be careful (although i'm still bad.)


----------

