Will Marvel Studios make a film than is grounded in reality?

[DrCosmic]

I'm not familiar with this phrase "tough to throw a light to" but I don't see anything about magic there.

I'm still waiting for a rigorous definition of "magic", myself. . .

I thought the point was that it doesn't have such a definition. If you can define it, it's not "real" magic, it's just science that ignorant people call magic.

 

[spideymouse]

I'm not familiar with this phrase "tough to throw a light to" but I don't see anything about magic there.



I thought the point was that it doesn't have such a definition. If you can define it, it's not "real" magic, it's just science that ignorant people call magic.

Looks like you just defined it =)

 

[Lorus]

I think the problem with trying to define magic as something independent of science comes from the fact that magic does only exist in fiction. As such, it is subject to the principles of fiction, the most important one of these being that it follows consistent, internal rules. Once you start applying rules and logic and limitations to something you are essentially making it a science that can be studied and understood. Really, as far as the Marvel universe goes, science is used to describe more immediately recognisable technology while magic is used for everything else. I don't think there is a difference between them though because one is real and the other isn't.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

i always figured magic was literally breaking the laws of physics. Which, it could be argued that science has done a few times throughout history.

 

[DrCosmic]

I disagree with that analysis, Lorus. Something internally consistent doesn't mean that it can be understood. Perhaps it can be studied, even predicted, but that doesn't imply understanding, just pattern recognition. That's why I see with most fictional magic. I disagree with your summary of the Marvel Universe. Galactus' abilities are certainly not immediately recognizable technology, but they are not described as magic on any level. Same with the abilities of the Beyonder or Abraxas. Or many mutant powers, for that matter.

Looks like you just defined it =)

Did I?

 

[terry78]

Basically hard to define, is what the phrase means.

 

[Lorus]

I disagree with that analysis, Lorus. Something internally consistent doesn't mean that it can be understood. Perhaps it can be studied, even predicted, but that doesn't imply understanding, just pattern recognition. That's why I see with most fictional magic. I disagree with your summary of the Marvel Universe. Galactus' abilities are certainly not immediately recognizable technology, but they are not described as magic on any level. Same with the abilities of the Beyonder or Abraxas. Or many mutant powers, for that matter.

I think if something can be studied, predicted and recognised as having certain properties then it essentially qualifies as a science. It's true that understanding won't always come from the study of such things but the fact that it can be utilised anyway to a desired effect suggests that an understanding can and does exist at least to some degree. A perfect understanding may be lacking but I think you underestimate pattern recognition and its importance. Cavemen may not have understood how fire was formed or what it was but they could create and use it effectively.

 

[Dr Tactics]

I disagree with that analysis, Lorus. Something internally consistent doesn't mean that it can be understood. Perhaps it can be studied, even predicted, but that doesn't imply understanding, just pattern recognition. That's why I see with most fictional magic. I disagree with your summary of the Marvel Universe. Galactus' abilities are certainly not immediately recognizable technology, but they are not described as magic on any level. Same with the abilities of the Beyonder or Abraxas. Or many mutant powers, for that matter.

But your defining the label Marvel has or hasn't put on them as far as being referred to as magicians but having instead alien technology. Had they come down (appeared) on a less civilized society like the Vikings or ancient Mayans or such they would view it a magic or Gods performing magic or having magic powers. It (magic) still is"We don't understand the physics of the feat performed so it's magic" or like Dr Strange abilities one not understanding the metaphysical or spirit world as he does so thats magic too. Magic is a lack of understanding the why's and how's of what's taking place AKA "How did he do that?"

 

[Destructus86]

All i'm gonna say is i'm glad Marvel isn't screwing over the mythos of it's characters like DC is doing right now by making things so overly "real"

 

[metaphysician]

I thought the point was that it doesn't have such a definition. If you can define it, it's not "real" magic, it's just science that ignorant people call magic.

This definition is useless, because virtually all magic in all fiction is understandable to *someone*. What's more, if the understanding is the sole distinguishing element, than you can effectively have two things that are absolutely identical in all discernable properties, behavior, and effects, and yet one is arbitrarily magic and one is arbitrarily 'science,' just because one has a theory for its underlying mechanism and the other doesn't.

This isn't even getting into how, in quite a lot of magic systems, you *can't* use magic without understanding it. Not only do practitioners have to understand what they are doing to do it, but they apply that knowledge to create new effects based on exploration and exploitation of known principles.

Short version: in order to be meaningful, a definition for magic has to be *objective*- something is magic, or isn't magic, regardless of whether anyone is around to even observe it, let alone understand it.

 

[DrCosmic]

I think if something can be studied, predicted and recognised as having certain properties then it essentially qualifies as a science. It's true that understanding won't always come from the study of such things but the fact that it can be utilised anyway to a desired effect suggests that an understanding can and does exist at least to some degree. A perfect understanding may be lacking but I think you underestimate pattern recognition and its importance. Cavemen may not have understood how fire was formed or what it was but they could create and use it effectively.

I don't think predicting necessarily involves recognizing it has certain properties. I don't think even Dr. Strange has mentioned any properties of magic. I can utilize my car very efficiently, but that doesn't mean I understand it to any degree. Pattern recognition is very important, sure, because it gets the job done. I don't think it does any more than that though.

 

[DrCosmic]

But your defining the label Marvel has or hasn't put on them as far as being referred to as magicians but having instead alien technology. Had they come down (appeared) on a less civilized society like the Vikings or ancient Mayans or such they would view it a magic or Gods performing magic or having magic powers. It (magic) still is"We don't understand the physics of the feat performed so it's magic" or like Dr Strange abilities one not understanding the metaphysical or spirit world as he does so thats magic too. Magic is a lack of understanding the why's and how's of what's taking place AKA "How did he do that?"

I agree, and that's what Thor refers to. Magic as an ignorant perception of science, nothing more. But are we going to take that to the next level and say that Dr. Strange is a Master Scientist,

This definition is useless, because virtually all magic in all fiction is understandable to *someone*. What's more, if the understanding is the sole distinguishing element, than you can effectively have two things that are absolutely identical in all discernable properties, behavior, and effects, and yet one is arbitrarily magic and one is arbitrarily 'science,' just because one has a theory for its underlying mechanism and the other doesn't.

This isn't even getting into how, in quite a lot of magic systems, you *can't* use magic without understanding it. Not only do practitioners have to understand what they are doing to do it, but they apply that knowledge to create new effects based on exploration and exploitation of known principles.

Short version: in order to be meaningful, a definition for magic has to be *objective*- something is magic, or isn't magic, regardless of whether anyone is around to even observe it, let alone understand it.

Hmmm... that's a good point. I guess my definition is lacking something. But, yes, my understanding is that two things can be set side by side and one is arbitrarily magic and one is arbitrarily science.

I didn't know that understanding was necessary in any magic systems. I'd certainly never seen anything that could be qualified as exploration or experimentation. I thought they simply understood the patterns, or followed orders, and did their thing. We could call those patterns (or patterns of patterns) principles, but that doesn't mean one understands those principles.

But I guess I could question your initial statement. Is all magic understood to someone? Does Dormammu understand what he does, or is it like a (non-med student) moving their arm. Pattern recognition, without an understand of the underlying theories. Hmmm...

 

[metaphysician]

Thing is, if you really want to go "non-understandability is the sole criterion", technically that makes Quantum Mechanics "magic." Quite a few things involve, according to current theory, "black boxes" in which it is literally impossible to see what is "actually" going on inside. If you believe Neils Bohr, there *isn't* anything "inside", as a philosophical matter. And yet despite that, Quantum Mechanics still has a rigorous theory describing causes and effects, that generates confirmable predictions and uses practical results. So by any rational standard, it is totally a science. . . and yet by that definition, its actually "magic," because their are elements which are not ( cannot be ) known.

Basically, trying to distinguish between what something is, and what something does, is a red herring: something *is* what it does. If you know that If X, Then Y, you already have scientific knowledge of the topic, assuming you treat the matter rigorously ( and if you aren't, then its *you* that are superstitious, not the subject in question ). The rest is just matters of degree, not kind.

 

[cherokeesam]

I agree, and that's what Thor refers to. Magic as an ignorant perception of science, nothing more. But are we going to take that to the next level and say that Dr. Strange is a Master Scientist,



Hmmm... that's a good point. I guess my definition is lacking something. But, yes, my understanding is that two things can be set side by side and one is arbitrarily magic and one is arbitrarily science.

I didn't know that understanding was necessary in any magic systems. I'd certainly never seen anything that could be qualified as exploration or experimentation. I thought they simply understood the patterns, or followed orders, and did their thing. We could call those patterns (or patterns of patterns) principles, but that doesn't mean one understands those principles.

But I guess I could question your initial statement. Is all magic understood to someone? Does Dormammu understand what he does, or is it like a (non-med student) moving their arm. Pattern recognition, without an understand of the underlying theories. Hmmm...

What do you think all those dusty old spellbooks are for? It's knowledge, but it's *arcane* knowledge. You've got to be a member of the top secret society to understand the ancient arts, yadda yadda yadda. That's the way magic is classically handled in fiction, film and gaming, and Dr. Strange is certainly no exception.

The difference between magic and science is simple enough: science sees a rigid framework around the universe and tries to narrowly define and process all of it, even if it means fitting square pegs into round holes. Magic, on the other hand, blows that framework wide open and says ANYTHING is possible, if you just wish or will it to be so. As Aleister Crowley succinctly put it: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

 

[DrCosmic]

Hmmm... well if Crowley is an authority in this discussion, I'll just agree to disagree.

My takeaway from this is that magic and science can't be reliably delineated. Certainly science doesn't narrowly define everything in the universe, neither does magic always mean that anything is possible (generally, if it is internally consistent, it has limits). I still think it's misleading to call fictional magic science, simply because it is "understood" on its own terms, and think the idea that Thor has done such a thing to be ridiculous, due to the overwhelming amount of work put into putting science fiction elements into Thor, but yeah, magic can't even be defined in relation to science, it just is it's own thing, whatever it says it is at the time, that's what it is.

 

[metaphysician]

What do you think all those dusty old spellbooks are for? It's knowledge, but it's *arcane* knowledge. You've got to be a member of the top secret society to understand the ancient arts, yadda yadda yadda. That's the way magic is classically handled in fiction, film and gaming, and Dr. Strange is certainly no exception.

Which means it is, indeed, scientifically understandable. If it can be rationally assessed and understood, its subject to scientific principles. The fact that those dusty tomes are kept away from modern science is an aspect of the culture of the magic-users, not an intrinsic limitation of the practice.

The difference between magic and science is simple enough: science sees a rigid framework around the universe and tries to narrowly define and process all of it, even if it means fitting square pegs into round holes. Magic, on the other hand, blows that framework wide open and says ANYTHING is possible, if you just wish or will it to be so. As Aleister Crowley succinctly put it: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

First, your description of science is nonsense. It has nothing to do with rigid frameworks, it has to do with making observations, building theories to explain the observations, testing those theories against reality, and repeating until the theories are sufficiently reliable to make consistent, useful predictions. Where are you even getting this "square peg" idea from?

And even if the magic system works exactly as you suggest, *that is still scientifically understandable.* "How much do you have to 'wish' something to get it to happen?" "What effects can be generated by 'wishing'?" "Are some effects easier to generate than others?" "Does who makes the 'wish' effect the efficacy?" These are all questions a scientist could ask, and then test, of even such a broad and vague magical system, thus allowing him to create new theories quantifying it.

( Also, that is totally not Crowley's magical practice. Crowley practiced a form of hermetic theurgy that is almost the exact opposite, as far as it being built upon endless arcane rules. What you described was Crowley's *philosophy of life*, which has nothing to do with magic. )

 

[metaphysician]

Hmmm... well if Crowley is an authority in this discussion, I'll just agree to disagree.

My takeaway from this is that magic and science can't be reliably delineated. Certainly science doesn't narrowly define everything in the universe, neither does magic always mean that anything is possible (generally, if it is internally consistent, it has limits). I still think it's misleading to call fictional magic science, simply because it is "understood" on its own terms, and think the idea that Thor has done such a thing to be ridiculous, due to the overwhelming amount of work put into putting science fiction elements into Thor, but yeah, magic can't even be defined in relation to science, it just is it's own thing, whatever it says it is at the time, that's what it is.

The problem is more, people trying to define magic as the opposite of science. Science is a philosophy of how you look at the universe. Magic, in virtually all settings, is a physical/metaphysical force active in the universe. Its like saying chemistry and literature are "opposites."

Now, many stories set up a dichotomy between the two, but frankly, this dichotomy is almost always predicated on magic somehow hiding itself from anyone actually applying the scientific method, whether through bad writing or the intentional efforts of people in the setting. Scientists only "automatically" disbelieve in magic because they haven't been presented with any good evidence.

 

[DrCosmic]

That's true, but generally magic also defies modern science (someone described it as breaking physics), and application of the scientific method to magic requires throwing Newton out on his ear. So certainly we can think of magic as in contrast to all known/real sciences, right? Philosophically science, yes, literally even, but not anything that anyone called a scientist would have any advantage in dealing with on any level. In addition to a philosophy, science is also a (wide) field of study, and magic doesn't fall into any of its branches.

 

[metaphysician]

That just means there needs to be a few new ones. The only reason science is shown as having no understanding of a magic, is because nobody has yet had the opportunity to study magic scientifically. In settings where magic *isn't* kept hidden from actual scientists, science tends to develop new fields to incorporate magical effects into the overall model of reality. Its analogous to science not having any knowledge or understanding of quantum mechanics in 1850. This is true, but it doesn't make quantum mechanical phenomenon any less scientifically understandable.

( and this is ignoring all the settings where the actual practitioners of magic *themselves* have a scientific understanding of magic, like most high fantasy settings with learned wizardry )

 

[DrCosmic]

I guess my question would be: does Quantum Mechanics defy all known scientific properties, calling into question the assumptions that every other branch of science branches off of? My cursory glance at the wiki page for QM says no. Magic is something different than that, it doesn't branch off of what all the other branches are branching off of, does it?

I thought that we established that all understanding of magic is by definition scientific understanding of magic?

 

[terry78]

This conversation just got way too heady.

 

[DrCosmic]

The metaphysician and the metascience phd are talking, I suppose the conversation would inevitably turn 'meta.'

 

[Lorus]

The problem with saying that magic breaks all the laws of physics or rules of science is that saying that runs contrary to everything science is. There are no laws of physics that are written in stone, if something breaks your law then scientific thinking would dictate your law is wrong and that you don't understand the field as fully as you think. In my eyes, magic and science can't really be separated because science is not a rigid set of principles, it is fluid and all encompassing. If it exists in the universe, then it is subject to scientific inquiry. What other type of inquiry could there be?

 

[DrCosmic]

That's the thing, virtually all modern science is built on physics. If the laws of physics are wrong, then all modern science is wrong. Not science itself, but simply modern science - science as we know it. Any post-magic science would be something new, perhaps analogous to the branches we have now, but fundamentally different.

Other random thought: what do people who use magic call things that break the internally consistent rules of magic?

In other news, I think a cool source of 'magic' for a new setting would be to have a really, really powerful psionic. This person hears the thoughts and read the actions of the 'attuned' and uses their extremely long ranged telekinesis to provide a bevy of effects in the behalf of those people. But then one might want to ask what makes telekinesis work, and I'm sure they'll come up with some shenanigans.

 

[Chewy]

Other random thought: what do people who use magic call things that break the internally consistent rules of magic?

Dark magic.