Is Magic Merely Unknown Science in Disguise?

[frankinstein]

Let's say all things are known in the Universe and magic doesn't exist, then:

K is the set of all things known and Magic, M, doesn't exist.

M \notin {K}

Let {\neg K} be all things not known.

{\neg K} \notin {K}

Since Magic can not be defined by {K} Then

M \in {\neg K} by default since

{\neg K} is the set of what can not be defined by {K}

Because the first premise is absurd, not all is known about the universe then the set {\neg K} is real and magic is a form of unknown which belongs to the set of {\neg K}.

Any comments or suggestions as to how to make this a better proof would be appreciated, thanks. Also is there any other similar proof of magic?

 

[CharmedQuark]

1. If magic doesn't exist then it cannot be an element of anything, or in other words magic cannot belong to any set.
2. The set {\negK} is equal to the empty set since all things in the universe are known and therefore nothing is unknown.
3. The empty set has no elements and M cannot belong to any set, therefore M \notin {\negK}.
4. Therefore there is no contradiction and your proof is flawed.

 

[marcusmath]

Surely this 'proof' just states that M doesn't exist so it is in {¬K} which contains all that is not in {K}
Then when you debunk the original statement as 'absurd', you claim {K} is not all that is known so {¬K} is no longer all that isn't real, it also contains elements whose reality are unknown, as not everything is known. All in all, you've proved you don't know whether magic is real or not.

 

[frankinstein]

Surely this 'proof' just states that M doesn't exist so it is in {¬K} which contains all that is not in {K}
Then when you debunk the original statement as 'absurd', you claim {K} is not all that is known so {¬K} is no longer all that isn't real, it also contains elements whose reality are unknown, as not everything is known. All in all, you've proved you don't know whether magic is real or not.

Ok...then change {\negK} to set of All Information, {AllInfo}. Change "Magic doesn't exist" to "Magic is undefinable" from the set of what is known.
So:

All things are known in the Universe, {K}, and "Magic, M, is undefinable" from all that is known, therefore:

{K} \subset {AllInfo},
M \notin {K} but,
M \in {AllInfo} \notin {K}

Since the first premise of {K} is absurd it therefore is contained by {AllInfo} but is not equal to {AllInfo}. Since M is definable by {Allinfo} it is real.

 

[CharmedQuark]

^^You have to assume that magic exists for it to be an element of the set of all information.

Also you are forgetting that {AllInfo}\subset {K} since all things in the universe are known. therefore {AllInfo} = {K}. Your proof is actually proving that magic does not exist. if you assume that magic cannot be defined in k.

 

[frankinstein]

^^You have to assume that magic exists for it to be an element of the set of all information.

Also you are forgetting that {AllInfo}\subset {K} since all things in the universe are known. therefore {AllInfo} = {K}. Your proof is actually proving that magic does not exist. if you assume that magic cannot be defined in k.

Not quite since the statement "All things are known in the Universe" is impossible by virtues of perceptions and the uncertainity principle, which is why the statement is absurd.

{AllInfo} \neq {K} because not all information in the universe is precievable or even from what can be precieved completely understood. e.g. Quantum weirdness.

So magic is possible we just don't understand it.

 

[frankinstein]

Not quite since the statement "All things are known in the Universe" is impossible by virtues of perceptions and the uncertainity principle, which is why the statement is absurd.

{AllInfo} \neq {K} because not all information in the universe is precievable or even from what can be precieved completely understood. e.g. Quantum weirdness.

So magic is possible we just don't understand it.

I'm wondering if the statement "All things are known in the Universe" if changed to ""All things are known in the indeterminate Universe" would render a more mathematically pure proof? Where by the very nature of an "indeterminate Universe" prevents complete knowledge.

Also by defining Magic as the inexplicable in the "indeterminate Universe". I believe that would imply "Magic" as an element of the set {AllInfo} and exculd it from the set {K}.

 

[Bill_B]

Let's say all things are known in the Universe and magic doesn't exist, then:

Because the first premise is absurd, not all is known about the universe then the set \negK is real and magic is a form of unknown which belongs to the set of \negK

If you declare a premise, then build a logical argument from that premise, then declare the premise invalid, it doesn't prove anything. It just invalidates your argument.

If you're trying for a proof by contradiction, you would have to either

1. assume magic exists, then logically show that magic existing leads to a contradiction (proving that it can't exist)

or

2. assume magic does not exist, then logically show that magic not existing leads to a contradiction (proving that it must exist)Using what you've written so far, the best you can hope for is (in my opinion) to maybe show that we don't know everything in the universe, or that magic may (or may not) exist.