What If Magic Is Just Physics With Better Branding? (Every Tech Path Has a Free Spiritual Twin)

[Swampdweller900]

This is what I always keep banging on about - we have loads of data and no theory - which is made even worse by needing some kind of magical model to 'hang your hat on' and then, when the magic works, people declare that model to 'be the theory'. Cue loads of confusion when all the different models show equal amounts of success for different people

And this is the largest gap in the usual skeptic argument, "Well, prove it!" OK, well travel back in time to 1670 and prove: the speed of light in a vacuum, that light is electromagnetic radiation, that bacteria exist, that DNA exists, the mass of an electron, and that sperm and ova make babies. They start from the assumption that science is, right now, able to see and measure all phenomenon. Which is patently false, and any physicist would agree that we don't actually HAVE a full picture of the universe and how it works. It's a very good picture, but it's not complete. Otherwise all the attempts to solve a unified field theory would be done.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

And this is the largest gap in the usual skeptic argument, "Well, prove it!" OK, well travel back in time to 1670 and prove: the speed of light in a vacuum, that light is electromagnetic radiation, that bacteria exist, that DNA exists, the mass of an electron, and that sperm and ova make babies. They start from the assumption that science is, right now, able to see and measure all phenomenon. Which is patently false, and any physicist would agree that we don't actually HAVE a full picture of the universe and how it works. It's a very good picture, but it's not complete. Otherwise all the attempts to solve a unified field theory would be done.

TBF, your examples are experimental problems, not theory problems

The point is not that you couldn't demonstrate them, the problem is that you have to have an hypothesis so that you know to look.

There's no unified field theory because all the attempts at a unified field theory aren't worth a pitcher of warm spit.

 

[Swampdweller900]

TBF, your examples are experimental problems, not theory problems

The point is not that you couldn't demonstrate them, the problem is that you have to have an hypothesis so that you know to look.

There's no unified field theory because all the attempts at a unified field theory aren't worth a pitcher of warm spit.

My point is that it took new equipment and a new observation with that equipment before a new theory could be formed. There can be a gap of hundreds of years between the equipment being developed and it being used for the observation that kicks off a new hypothesis.

 

[throne]

TBF, your examples are experimental problems, not theory problems

The point is not that you couldn't demonstrate them, the problem is that you have to have an hypothesis so that you know to look.

There's no unified field theory because all the attempts at a unified field theory aren't worth a pitcher of warm spit.

We are all testers

My point is that it took new equipment and a new observation with that equipment before a new theory could be formed. There can be a gap of hundreds of years between the equipment being developed and it being used for the observation that kicks off a new hypothesis.

What system of magic do you think is the closest to being the most effective? I'd imagine that any of our systems will be seen as crude in the distant future but there has to be something directionally correct?

And saying chaos magic is a cop out to this question, as that's more of a meta concept.

I agree with you and Robert's points on this.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

We are all testers


What system of magic do you think is the closest to being the most effective? I'd imagine that any of our systems will be seen as crude in the distant future but there has to be something directionally correct?

And saying chaos magic is a cop out to this question, as that's more of a meta concept.

I agree with you and Robert's points on this.

In my case, aspects of chaos magic lined up with what my research was telling me, which is that any system of magic, correctly applied, can be the best.

And what does 'correctly applied' mean? As I see it, there are certain states of mind, certain ways of programming yourself that are requirements for successful magic, but they are inevitably coloured, nay, obscured, by whatever system you use to implement them.

Like I said, magic requires a belief system, but what that belief system is, is unimportant. You just have to believe it in the 'right' way so that it will trigger your consciousness to do the magic.

Why else would people claim the same amount of success for wildly different systems (assuming they aren't lying )

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 11:10 PM

My point is that it took new equipment and a new observation with that equipment before a new theory could be formed. There can be a gap of hundreds of years between the equipment being developed and it being used for the observation that kicks off a new hypothesis.

Sure, it can happen that way, but it's not required. Astronomers knew that Mercury had a weird 'wobble' for ages, and they proposed things like an extra planet causing it. It took Einstein to figure out, without any new equipment or observations, that the 'wobble' was down to General Relativity. After that, of course, there were new observations, but they were to support the theory after it was already created.

 

[Swampdweller900]

What system of magic do you think is the closest to being the most effective? I'd imagine that any of our systems will be seen as crude in the distant future but there has to be something directionally correct?

And saying chaos magic is a cop out to this question, as that's more of a meta concept.

This is a great question. Personally, I'm more a fan of ritual as a way to focus and align intent among multiple people. Malidoma Patrice's book on ritual is worth a read. I wouldn't say chaos magic per se, as the entire branch that uses fictional characters as entities just seems silly to me. Someone else's Temu entities because they're popular? No thanks. That fades too fast.

It's a subjective question as there's too much human factor in "doing it right." If I'm a SASS witch (I'm not, but stay with me) and that works for me and I get results, why is that less valid then someone 100% into Wicca if they also get results? That's the use of the scientific method in magic. Do YOU get results? Yes or no? If no, what can you change? I do agree with the chaos and eclectic magic ethos that rigid frameworks don't always make things better for everyone, and do a lot of gatekeeping.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

This is a great question. Personally, I'm more a fan of ritual as a way to focus and align intent among multiple people. Malidoma Patrice's book on ritual is worth a read. I wouldn't say chaos magic per se, as the entire branch that uses fictional characters as entities just seems silly to me. Someone else's Temu entities because they're popular? No thanks. That fades too fast.

The point is that you fashion your magic to suit you. Sure, if you find using pop culture characters silly, then don't do that It's just an example rather than the usual magical DO THIS OR IT WON'T WORK that so many systems use to reinforce your belief system. If you believe that there's only one right way to do it, and you do it that way, that's going to convince you easier, right? I mean, it's very popular in religion ("Ours is the only True God and everyone else is a heretic").

I did have a useful insight recently that you're not forced to use the "quickly one and done" method with chaos magic - that meditative (and indeed ritual) methods could be combined with the flexibility of chaos magic to be useful for longer lasting, more complex workings.

It's a subjective question as there's too much human factor in "doing it right." If I'm a SASS witch (I'm not, but stay with me) and that works for me and I get results, why is that less valid then someone 100% into Wicca if they also get results? That's the use of the scientific method in magic. Do YOU get results? Yes or no? If no, what can you change? I do agree with the chaos and eclectic magic ethos that rigid frameworks don't always make things better for everyone, and do a lot of gatekeeping.

This is why I bang on about the six blind men and the elephant - what if the reason differing systems get the same successes for different people is that there's an underlying structure that (as I said above) is obscured by the system you use to implement it?

 

[HoldAll]

In my mind, all magic can ever do is borrow some physics terms to describe certain phenomena by way of analogy but not explain them to any satisfactory degree. Take energy, for example. We use the term because of its versatility but if anybody here was able to charge their phone by means of magic, I'd really like to see it. Or 'vibrations', 'frequency', etc., all used in a figurative but not a literal sense. Quantum physics has provided us with yet another irresistible source for occult analogies but not with proof that magic exists or works.

For example Peter J. Carroll, with his scientific background in chemistry, proposed this equation for magic (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, together with a more complex formula for the success probability of results-oriented rituals).

M = G x L x S x B

Where G equals Gnosis, i.e. two particular altered states of consciousness, L means the magical Link, S means Subliminalisation of intent, and B means Belief.

Carroll himself admitted that "Unfortunately the ‘ingredients’ of M do not equate to easily measurable phenomena." His equations only hold true for his own brand of chaos magic, others might object that altered states of consciousness aren't absolutely required to perform magic successfully, dispute the 'magical link' variable ("Sympathetic magic? Really?"), or take issue with his 'subliminalisation of intent', one of the main ideas behind chaos sigil magic, and possibly add other factors of their own.

In this

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Caroll says, for example:

Magic works capriciously and non-repeatably.

Trying to objectively prove that sigils or any other kind of spell actually works seems as problematical as trying to simply prove that ‘some wishes sometimes come true’.

For me, it all goes to show that Carroll knew very well that it's pointless to use equations to 'prove' magic. They are tools taken from hard science but not tools of magic in and of themselves. Physics can provide analogies but change the pertinent subfield and you'll change the paradigm. Frater U.D., for example, tried to change the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to escape the limitations of the Laws of Thermodynamics, especially the first one (Conservation of Energy) according to which energy cannot be created or destroyed - well, information can, and his Information Model could have changed a lot about how we think about magic but it never caught on. Had we borrowed information theory instead of quantum physics from science, much might have changed in occult thinking. Couldn't be e.g. an offering be considered nothing but an information package? Something to ponder.

As a result, I think physics can be seen as one of the many sources of inspirations for magic, same as mythology or religion, but never as an equal or competitor.

 

[MaryContrary]

i think its psyche's nervous system. the map of the human soul

 

[Robert Ramsay]

In my mind, all magic can ever do is borrow some physics terms to describe certain phenomena by way of analogy but not explain them to any satisfactory degree. Take energy, for example. We use the term because of its versatility but if anybody here was able to charge their phone by means of magic, I'd really like to see it. Or 'vibrations', 'frequency', etc., all used in a figurative but not a literal sense. Quantum physics has provided us with yet another irresistible source for occult analogies but not with proof that magic exists or works.

I think people refer to 'energy' because that's what it feels like. We all know that emotion can play a big part in magic, and it's easy to refer to 'emotional energy' - nothing like the stuff you use to charge your phone, certainly

For example Peter J. Carroll, with his scientific background in chemistry, proposed this equation for magic (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, together with a more complex formula for the success probability of results-oriented rituals).

M = G x L x S x B

Where G equals Gnosis, i.e. two particular altered states of consciousness, L means the magical Link, S means Subliminalisation of intent, and B means Belief.

Carroll himself admitted that "Unfortunately the ‘ingredients’ of M do not equate to easily measurable phenomena." His equations only hold true for his own brand of chaos magic, others might object that altered states of consciousness aren't absolutely required to perform magic successfully, dispute the 'magical link' variable ("Sympathetic magic? Really?"), or take issue with his 'subliminalisation of intent', one of the main ideas behind chaos sigil magic, and possibly add other factors of their own.

Absolutely - there's no point in having rigorously internally consistent maths if your variables are all bollocks. Anyway, who's to say it's 'x' and not '+'?

In this

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Caroll says, for example:

Magic works capriciously and non-repeatably.

Trying to objectively prove that sigils or any other kind of spell actually works seems as problematical as trying to simply prove that ‘some wishes sometimes come true’.

So you need to work out why it's capricious. Radin (and others) have shown that, statistically, you get successful (or unsuccessful ) results way beyond chance, even if you cannot predict whether a single trial will succeed or not. Quantum physics shows why you cannot predict the outcome of a quantum observation; shouldn't magic strive to do the same with its results?

For me, it all goes to show that Carroll knew very well that it's pointless to use equations to 'prove' magic.

Amen. Maths is only useful when you are working with known quantities.

Frater U.D., for example, tried to change the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to escape the limitations of the Laws of Thermodynamics, especially the first one (Conservation of Energy) according to which energy cannot be created or destroyed - well, information can, and his Information Model could have changed a lot about how we think about magic but it never caught on. Had we borrowed information theory instead of quantum physics from science, much might have changed in occult thinking.

Certainly, thinking about magic in terms of information is easier. Classic example - influencing coloured lights that flash at random - all that has changed is one bit of information per light. As Crowley put it: "it is theoretically possible to cause in any object any change of which that object is capable by nature" In this case, it means that the lights have to already be set up to be flashing randomly - you can't start them suddenly flashing of their own accord

At the same time, there still has to be a physical explanation for information theory (independent of magic) which brings us back to physics again.

As a result, I think physics can be seen as one of the many sources of inspirations for magic, same as mythology or religion, but never as an equal or competitor.

The difference being, is that with physics (and indeed maths), you can't just make shit up and expect not to get called out on it