What would it take to convince you of magic / supernatural?

[JT Smith]

For me this falls into the category of I'll know it when I see it.

I sometimes have lucid dreams and do things with agency that I know are only possible because I'm dreaming. The most common of these that I choose is flying unaided, kind of like Superman. It's a wonderful feeling and I'm quite certain if there were some way to achieve this in my waking state I would be convinced it was "magic"... or that my mind had snapped. Yeah, that's the tricky part.

How could I be sure that I hadn't just lost it? Except for the fact that I know I'm dreaming my lucid dream flights feel completely real. So if I saw it how would I know the difference between magic and madness?

 

[russ_watters]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Arthur Clarke

I've never liked that quote/idea. I prefer an adaptation of Sagan's thesis from "A Demon Haunted World" that unexplained real phenomena were traditionally attributed to magic/supernatural -- but then the development of science changed that. Today the starting assumption is that any new and unexplained phenomena is attributed to an unknown/unexplained law of the universe. At best I'd consider Clarke's view many centuries obsolete. Indeed, my view is pretty much what you're starting with here:

If the "supernatural" phenomenon is reproducible (at least in a statistical sense) we can study it and it will become part of science. If it's not reproducible then you'll have a really hard time convincing scientists.

Yes, but you're also missing what magic/supernatural is. Reproduction on demand can convince scientists of the existence of any phenomena and subject it to study according to the scientific process ('part of science"). But the method of analyzing a phenomena is independent of whether the phenomena is magic/supernatural or natural/part of the "normal" laws of the universe.

"Supernatural" means the laws of the universe apply to everyone except That Guy. He can re-produce his powers on demand, but there simply is no explanation for them and no way to reconcile them with the laws of the universe that everyone/thing else adheres to.

 

[russ_watters]

So if I saw it how would I know the difference between magic and madness?

Internal experiences of the supernatural are impossible to verify/replicate, so impossible to know if they exist only in one's delusional mind. But it isn't difficult to come up with external examples that would be verifiable if they were real.

 

[mfb]

I think you define "magic" differently than Clarke.

Sufficiently advanced technology can do things we can't even begin to explain. They look just like the things people call "magic". That's what the law is saying, and so far it has been true.

Today the starting assumption is that any new and unexplained phenomena is attributed to an unknown/unexplained law of the universe.

That's exactly the approach we would have for anything described as magic. That's perfectly in agreement with Clarke's law.

But the method of analyzing a phenomena is independent of whether the phenomena is magic/supernatural or natural/part of the "normal" laws of the universe.

I don't think such a distinction makes sense. If it's a phenomenon within the universe or some larger structure including the universe it's trivially part of the laws of the universe or that larger structure. A law of "that guy's will changes the universe freely" would be really weird, but we could study it.

 

[DaveC426913]

But it isn't difficult to come up with external examples that would be verifiable if they were real.

The difficulty, of course, is that some phenom are highly fickle, and can't reliably be investigated.
How many years has ball lightning been on the fence between myth and fact?

 

[russ_watters]

The difficulty, of course, is that some phenom are highly fickle, and can't reliably be investigated.

IMO, we shouldn't be purposely picking bad examples to show that the logic won't always work, we should pick good examples to demonstrate that the logic can work.

 

[Jarvis323]

In my opinion, ultimately the stuff we're made of and whatever animates it is something science can't grapple with. And everything reduces to that. So what are we left with that isn't magic? Maybe math.

Otherwise we need some arbitrarily specific definition.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you define "magic" differently than Clarke.

How would you/Clarke define magic? I define it as an ability that violates the laws of physics that everyone else has to follow.

Sufficiently advanced technology can do things we can't even begin to explain.

I don't agree and I think for a futurist (Clarke) or a scientist to say such a thing indicates a surprising lack of vision. I think there are a lot of potential phenomena that would be very easy to recognize as explicit violations of the laws of physics. And other phenomena that we could recognize as being fanciful but allowable under current physics. I'm genuinely confused by this position. It's a catchy quote, but when I try to construct a logical framework around it, it makes no sense.

[edit] The only way I can think of to make sense of the quote is to modify it slightly to merge it with Sagan's thesis: Any sufficiently advanced technology *was* indistinguishable from magic [before the invention of science]. But today we should be able to differentiate between advanced technology and magic.

They look just like the things people call "magic". That's what the law is saying, and so far it has been true. That's exactly the approach we would have for anything described as magic. That's perfectly in agreement with Clarke's law.

Then what you/Clarke are really saying is you don't believe magic exists* and won't consider the possibility that it could. You're entitled to that, but it is completely useless for/different from investigating the question of whether magic exists.

*and that's still not a definition of "magic".

I don't think such a distinction makes sense. If it's a phenomenon within the universe or some larger structure including the universe it's trivially part of the laws of the universe or that larger structure. A law of "that guy's will changes the universe freely" would be really weird, but we could study it.

It's not about whether you can study it, it's about whether it can be incorporated into the laws of the universe. It's inherently impossible to incorporate magic into the laws of the universe. That's the entire point of magic.

 

[Jarvis323]

It's inherently impossible to incorporate magic into the laws of the universe. That's the entire point of magic.

It might also be inherently impossible for us to come up with true laws of physics/the universe.

 

[russ_watters]

It might also be inherently impossible for us to come up with true laws of physics/the universe.

Agreed. And that's why we can't ever actually know if either we've figured out the True Laws of the Universe or if a phenomena we see is magic.

But I submit that the gap between thinking we probably know and being certain can in both cases be very small. For magic, obvious violations of the laws of physics would be really difficult to deal with in any way except accepting that they are magic.

 

[kyphysics]

I think medically documented healings to prayer are pretty compelling to me (among various other things).

If a doctor did a medical imaging scan or some other test(s) that confirmed a very serious illness and there was no active treatment of the condition ongoing and this person was prayed over for healing afterwards and medical tests later showed the illness gone, then that'd at least be interesting to me. There are many such cases documented (some in academic and medical journals). Biola University Professor, JP Moreland, has a new book (due out in November) that touches on miracles and lists a few medically documented cases here in this video: [link deleted]

book: [link deleted]

About the 6-min. mark, there's a story of a woman whose cancer was medically documented and told by her doctors she should go to hospice for end-of-life care for her condition. She sent to a church, was prayed for, and said she felt a warmth throughout her body (and thought something happened). She went back to her doctor afterwards to explain what she felt and asked to be tested again. The new images showed zero cancer and she's never had it return since. Yes, there are spontaneous remissions of cancer that have nothing to do with prayer (although, those cases usually return later). But, the timing of this incident is what is interesting (immediately after prayer). It could be coincidence. Some may argue that the timing of the disappearance of the cancer was sheer luck/randomness.

With so many cases, though, of instant healing post-prayer that's been medically documented (see also Craig Keener and Lee Strobel's various books on the subject), I think there are good grounds for belief in the supernatural.

 

[Bystander]

At best I'd consider Clarke's view many centuries obsolete. Indeed, my view is pretty much what you're starting with here:

+1; that old chestnut gets pulled out every time the "speculations" begin. Don't know why this one has not yet been "tied off."

 

[russ_watters]

I think medically documented healings to prayer are pretty compelling to me (among various other things)...

With so many cases, though, of instant healing post-prayer that's been medically documented (see also Craig Keener and Lee Strobel's various books on the subject), I think there are good grounds for belief in the supernatural.

Faith healing lacks repeatability and causality. It is squarely in the realm of pseudoscience and one of the few remaining specific examples of Sagan's "Demon Haunted" thesis.

This thread can't be a "debunk this pseudoscience" thread. And any way, there are much better examples available in fictional media (Harry Potter was cited previously) to test the logic.

 

[BWV]

I think medically documented healings to prayer are pretty compelling to me (among various other things).

If a doctor did a medical imaging scan or some other test(s) that confirmed a very serious illness and there was no active treatment of the condition ongoing and this person was prayed over for healing afterwards and medical tests later showed the illness gone, then that'd at least be interesting to me. There are many such cases documented (some in academic and medical journals). Biola University Professor, JP Moreland, has a new book (due out in November) that touches on miracles and lists a few medically documented cases here in this video: [link deleted]

book: [link deleted]

About the 6-min. mark, there's a story of a woman whose cancer was medically documented and told by her doctors she should go to hospice for end-of-life care for her condition. She sent to a church, was prayed for, and said she felt a warmth throughout her body (and thought something happened). She went back to her doctor afterwards to explain what she felt and asked to be tested again. The new images showed zero cancer and she's never had it return since. Yes, there are spontaneous remissions of cancer that have nothing to do with prayer (although, those cases usually return later). But, the timing of this incident is what is interesting (immediately after prayer). It could be coincidence. Some may argue that the timing of the disappearance of the cancer was sheer luck/randomness.

With so many cases, though, of instant healing post-prayer that's been medically documented (see also Craig Keener and Lee Strobel's various books on the subject), I think there are good grounds for belief in the supernatural.

You mean all those well-documented cases of amputated limbs regrowing, or situations where a disease perhaps was misdiagnosed or where spontaneous remissions are possible?

But the thought of a God who arbitrarily heals a few as sort of a tease to the countless others who suffer and die (perhaps as a result of volume of the petitions of others) seems monsterous to me

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think equating religion with magic will get this thread closed lickety-split.

 

[PeroK]

You mean all those well-documented cases of amputated limbs regrowing, or situations where a disease perhaps was misdiagnosed or where spontaneous remissions are possible?

But the thought of a God who arbitrarily heals a few as sort of a tease to the countless others who suffer and die (perhaps as a result of volume of the petitions of others) seems monsterous to me

I always wonder when people thank God after recovering from a disease but don't blame him for giving it to them in the first place.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Harry Potter

Harry Potter clearly goes beyond what we think of as "laws of nature" - people don't turn into cats or teleport - but largely follows its own rules. The same incantation produces the same results, always. So that's a case where the phenomenon is subject to scientific analysis, but clearly magical as well: if it were real, the outcome would be an expansion of what the "natural world" means.

A different example would be the Witches in Macbeth. What role do they play? Are they magically influencing Macbeth? Are they merely prophesying? Is there even a distinction? This is subject to literary analysis, but not scientific analysis. Even if the Witches were driving the action and Macbeth only a puppet, how could you tell?

 

[pinball1970]

My wife posed a theoretical similar to this last night while watching the show Supernatural. I also was thinking about the concept that technology that is sufficiently advanced becomes indistinguishable from magic.

The more I think about it, the more I see that idea as paradoxical. Understanding that idea fundamentally assigns anything magic to being an advanced technology. So once understanding that, is there anything at all that we could see that would convince us that there is some big fundamental aspect of the universe that we don't understand and can't with science?

I keep thinking back through history and there isn't a single thing that I couldn't conceive of some theoretical technology doing. There is literally a Star Trek episode where Picard uses the technology of The Enterprise to take on the powers of the devil. Jesus turning water to wine is just a teleport trick. Zeus throwing lighting bolts sounds like a plasma weapon. Making a covenant with a group of people to bring them to heaven sounds like transplanting the consciousness of someone upon death into a simulation. Some angels being describes as flying wheels with eyes all over them sounds a lot like the way I would build a probe if I had the tech. Even in fiction: mixing franchises, I could imagine The Force actually being some sort of Q technology that a civilization with a 5 billion year head starts eventually manufactures.

So is there anything you could think of that could convince you you're seeing something extra-universal that science or future science can't grapple instead of just some very advanced technology?

Supernatural or magic could demonstrated where laws are broken.

I have to go for obvious so.

1/A time machine that can go backwards in time– violating causality

2/A machine that can transport you to another star system and back in a few minutes – violating C as the universal speed limit

3/A machine that can freeze time (or is that close to one)

4/The ability to read a mind (accurately 100 4 digit digits say)

5/The ability to see through metals rocks

6/Lifting heavy objects without touching them

7/Flying (like superman)

No gadgets allowed for 4-7

Violating biological laws and physical laws
Edit. ALL without machines, just using the mind. Then it is supernatural not advanced technology.

 

[PeroK]

A different example would be the Witches in Macbeth. What role do they play? Are they magically influencing Macbeth? Are they merely prophesying? Is there even a distinction? This is subject to literary analysis, but not scientific analysis. Even if the Witches were driving the action and Macbeth only a puppet, how could you tell?

Shakespeare could have left it ambiguous, but the Witches also prophesy how he meets his end, re Great Birnam Wood "moving" and Macduff who was not "born of woman".

 

[Vanadium 50]

Had the Witches not interacted with Macbeth, would the events have unfolded the same way? This is a wonderful topic for discussion, but not scientifically testable, even if you had a Lab-Full-O-Witches.

 

[PeroK]

Had the Witches not interacted with Macbeth, would the events have unfolded the same way? This is a wonderful topic for discussion, but not scientifically testable, even if you had a Lab-Full-O-Witches.

Well, the truth is that Shakespeare made it all up. Macbeth's troops killed Duncan in battle. No Witches needed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth,_King_of_Scotland

 

[Bandersnatch]

How would you/Clarke define magic? I define it as an ability that violates the laws of physics that everyone else has to follow.

But I submit that the gap between thinking we probably know and being certain can in both cases be very small. For magic, obvious violations of the laws of physics would be really difficult to deal with in any way except accepting that they are magic.

You seem to be defining magic as something that is capricious and impenetrable. Capricious because it chooses where or when (or through whom) to act seemingly randomly. And impenetrable because it's impossible to even begin to construct a predictive model of its nature using existing knowledge.
Which in my opinion still fits squarely with Clarke's adage, as e.g. magnetism or radioactivity would be considered magic a millennium ago according to this metric.
This rock we call lodestone is magic, because it can do things no rocks can do. Why? Impossible to know. These uranium atoms are regular muggles, following the rules. But these identical uranium atoms randomly and without provocation have split. Why? Magic.

I find it difficult to imagine a truly impenetrable phenomenon. Another adage comes to mind - the exception proves (the existence of) the rule. I.e. you see something that doesn't fit with your description of the world? All it means the description is incomplete, not general enough.
Does it manifest in the physical world? Then it can be measured. If it can be measured, then it can be analysed. Does it work only on select individuals/objects/places? Then there is a quality about those that is causative - call it the grace of god, mana, or midichlorians - that can be further isolated in the analysis. Is there a random component to its workings? No problem, we have statistics and probability.

 

[Rive]

Supernatural or magic could demonstrated where laws are broken.

The expression 'supernatural' always baffles me, especially when it's connected to 'broken laws'.
In physics we already had plenty of 'broken laws', starting with Newton. But somehow, it was 'natural' to have them broken and (example) quantum mechanics as a patch usually not considered 'magic' either. (Some might disagree with that one, though .)
What happens is nature. Completely natural. Laws are human inventions. As somebody who is interested in science, can't wait to see them 'broken' again

not scientifically testable, even if you had a Lab-Full-O-Witches.

Yep. Lab-Full-O-Witches will still remain 'natural' in any circumstances (whatever irregularities happens there ) but they may be out of the scope of science and/or our known laws.

 

[russ_watters]

You seem to be defining magic as something that is capricious and impenetrable. Capricious because it chooses where or when (or through whom) to act seemingly randomly. And impenetrable because it's impossible to even begin to construct a predictive model of its nature using existing knowledge.

Pretty much, yes. Though it's not exactly random if a wizard can summon fire on demand.

And I go a step further than impenetrable: there's nothing in the box. I think that's critical. Scientifically minded people may not be programmed to accept an empty box could exist...though I submit they have to when fundamental principles/phenomena are reached.

Which in my opinion still fits squarely with Clarke's adage, as e.g. magnetism or radioactivity would be considered magic a millennium ago according to this metric.

A millennium ago we hadn't invented science so we didn't have the ability to recognize that there is in fact consistency in those behaviors...

er, had the compass been invented yet?

I find it difficult to imagine a truly impenetrable phenomenon.

That fine, but that means that you wouldn't be capable of accepting supernatural/magic if it existed. And I submit that people who set such an exclusionary framing can't objectively investigate the question.

 

[BWV]

the other problem is that magic is a meaningless term, most people seem to refer back to fantasy fiction or dungeons & dragons - but no one makes real claims that the can cast fireballs because they are a level 6 magic user . People who really believe in magic mostly tie it to either spirits / gods /demons or some new age gobbledygook, which has a veneer of science (these healing crystals channel the quantum vibrations of the universe..). To 'prove' magic do you then have to demonstrate the existence of the spirit that supposedly granted the power?

 

[russ_watters]

The expression 'supernatural' always baffles me, especially when it's connected to 'broken laws'.
In physics we already had plenty of 'broken laws', starting with Newton. But somehow, it was 'natural' to have them broken...

I don't consider Newton's laws to be broken. I still use them frequently.

I don't think this is a nitpicky distinction. As many of the examples show it's easy to conceive of the laws being obliterated by magic.

To me, what I'm seeing is people have an axiom "magic does not exist" and are unable to set it aside to entertain the question.

 

[pinball1970]

The expression 'supernatural' always baffles me, especially when it's connected to 'broken laws'.
In physics we already had plenty of 'broken laws', starting with Newton. But somehow, it was 'natural' to have them broken and (example) quantum mechanics as a patch usually not considered 'magic' either. (Some might disagree with that one, though .)
What happens is nature. Completely natural. Laws are human inventions. As somebody who is interested in science, can't wait to see them 'broken' againYep. Lab-Full-O-Witches will still remain 'natural' in any circumstances (whatever irregularities happens there ) but they may be out of the scope of science and/or our known laws.

We get some wriggle room in this thread yes?

We have to start somewhere so let’s start here? 2021?

I gave a few biological examples but we can stick walking on water in there as well.

These are real verified acts, under water cameras people in the pool touch the souls of my feet while I cross no “illusions” verified

Everyone can agree these acts break the “natural” laws.

 

[PeroK]

To me, what I'm seeing is people have an axiom "magic does not exist" and are unable to set it aside to entertain the question.

That's a bit harsh. For example, many magicians can do what Uri Geller does, so I might claim it's illogical to believe that he is a genuine exception and using supernatural powers.

Those who claim supernatural powers often do so for personal fraudulent gain. If we believe that a medium is speaking to a dead child or spouse, are we being open minded or complicit in their deceit?

 

[russ_watters]

That's a bit harsh.

I don't see/intend it as harsh, I see it as a perfectly viable worldview. Reversing the angle it could be phrased, "there's nothing in this universe that I/we scientists can't figure out." I think that attitude would serve scientists well because if they believed there were unknowable things they might stop looking for the answers. That's part of the problem with Sagan's "demons" - once you make the "demon" conclusion, you stop looking for another explanation.

And from a practical standpoint, there's really not much downside to the assumption because it's likely they will never actually need to test it. It only matters for rhetorical purposes: if talking with a believer, it's fairplay to acknowledge one would never accept a conclusion of "supernatural".

Those who claim supernatural powers often do so for personal fraudulent gain. If we believe that a medium is speaking to a dead child or spouse, are we being open minded or complicit in their deceit?

If we believe that we're being so open minded our brain falls out. The bar I'm setting is scientific scrutiny. Believers don't apply such a skeptical eye.

Being open minded doesn't mean one has to accept any particular answer, it just means one has to accept that any answer is available for selection following the investigation.

 

[Rive]

Everyone can agree these acts break the “natural” laws.

Well, not me. In case it really happens (and to settle with that 'really' would take quite lot of scrutiny) the most it would be able to break is my expectations.

Reversing the angle it could be phrased, "there's nothing in this universe that I/we scientists can't figure out."

Now, that's a bit harsh. There are plenty of things what happened too far away, happened only once, was not recorded, was not recorded with the right equipment and so on - these will likely and rightfully remain unknown.

I don't consider Newton's laws to be broken

Well, in different context I too prefer using different wording for this, like 'incomplete' or 'limited', but here maybe it's more appropriate to go with the flow of 'broken' (with those commas there).