The Maths of Magic.

Post Reply New Topic

We haven't had a thread on a magical topic for a while, so I thought I'd start one and lead it off with a question:

"What are the mathematics of magic?"

To elaborate, can anyone who believes in magic express the principles of magic in mathematical terms?

What equation most accurately describes the construction of an illusion, for instance?

I know of no mathematics. I'm not a believer in magic but believe there are undiscovered aspects of reality that could be considered 'magical'. For that matter the fact we even exist is somewhat magical, a source of energy which existed for infinity in a universe where our physics state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We are basically a mass of energy that existed for infinity which expanded and evolved to the degree that it can observe, test and question itself, seems magical to me.

What exactly is reality? I don't think an answer exists for that question, we can only measure, test and theorize. I hear something called simulation theory is getting popular though I haven't looked into it. (The Matrix )

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Last edited by Crimadella on 21 Feb 2019, 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

My reality is what I see every day----plus things that you don't see personally--but which are plausible.

Just because I don't hear a tree in Siberia falling down----doesn't mean that the tree didn't fall down.

If any "magic" is discovered to reliably follow mathematical formulas, it's by definition renamed "physics".

Like magnets.

You cannot define what you cannot measure.

While it is true that "The Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence", it is still the absence of evidence. Treating lack of evidence as evidence is like saying that the absence of smoke proves that the forest fire is very carefully concealed.

Measure friendship, then.

I only pointed out that if any phenomenon can be measured and follows mathematical patterns (as you required for "magic"), then it just becomes part of science, no matter how mysterious it initially appeared.

I understand that. What it takes away from is personal experience though. Take my little theory for example, 'the extended placebo'(if you need me to explain I can), it would be seemingly impossible(maybe not) to prove it in means of science because it's not reliable as a science, you can preform the same test with negative results. Science generally depends on repeatable results carried out by many different people. If you look at the placebo effect you can gauge it's accuracy within statistical outcomes.

If you can manage to do something seemingly impossible with sub-conscious expectancy(the closest answer I have) and get repeated positive results on a percentage base you could personally deem it plausible. The problem that could arise in a lab is a lack of confidence due to looking like a fool in a room full of people who will mock and question your sanity. Even I felt like a fool when exploring the idea, that aspect is very hard to get over, to have confidence and expectancy in something you have extreme doubts about.

I look at it from a few different angles, why do so many 'intelligent' people feel magic exists? Probably because they sometimes get positive results, seemingly lucky people versus seemingly very unlucky people, positive thinking often results in positive outcome and vice versa. Of course one could question chance and coincidence, these factors most certainly do occur, but with the things I did, I found that 'coincidences' seem to greatly increase as I , for brief moments in time, were able to get over feeling like an idiot for even trying.

I see it as, trying to have the confidence and expectancy to know the sugar pill will help you when the doctor tells you it's a sugar pill. So I don't see my personal experience as a lack of evidence, it's just evidence that wouldn't be accepted by a scientific body. That could possibly change, but really, who is going to fund that kind of research? lol.

I have a feeling people are going to think I'm absolutely crazy if we dive far into this one, lol.

A couple of other things, Relative in distress & someone is staring at me. Things that can't be confirmed by science are generally grouped into coincidence or hallucination even though that doesn't necessarily have to be the reality of the situation. I somewhat remember a little opening of a college chemistry book, can't rember specifically what it said but what it translated to is things that occur in reality can't always be confirmed in a science lab but in no way does it disprove the reality of the occurrence.

1. Define the Method: Qualitative or Quantitative.

2a. If Qualitative, define the terminology.
2b. If Quantitative, define the Scale: Binary, Linear, or Logarithmic.

Well, of course! Keep in mind that there must be a distinction between "Speculation" and "Fantasy". If each time you perform a certain ritual you achieve the same effect with no observable causal link, then you can safely speculate that the ritual may produce the effect.

For example, if someone immediately dies each time you point your wand at him or her and shout "Avada Kedavra", then you may speculate that there may be a connection between your actions and the deaths of your targets. All that remains is to determine what the link(s) between the cause and effect actually are. A rift in the timespace continuum? A demon named "Avada" turning someone into a "Kadavra"? A burst of gamma radiation from the tip of the wand?

But if the target of the "spell" goes on to live a normal life for the remainder of a normal human life-span, then there is likely no connection at all between the "spell" and the person's death; thus no reason to believe that a child's play-acting is responsible.

It's the lack of consistent results from "magic" rituals that hinders their inclusion in practical scientific study. But show me a "spell" that (1) produces the same predictably measurable effect each and every time, (2) cannot be duplicated with known science, (3) scales up or down depending on controllable factors, and (4) that I could perform on my own with minimal training, and I will study it to formulate a mathematical model that brings "magic" into mainstream science.

"Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science"
-Agatha Heterodyne, Girl Genius.

(yes I'm quoting a webcomic, shuddup! )

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." -- Florence Ambrose, Chief Engineer on the Savage Chicken in the "Freefall" webcomic

A man of wealth and taste, I see.

Pleased to meet you! Have you guessed my name?

I actually like Phil Foglio's rendition of "Mad Science" that includes aspects of both magic and science, and I've been following his works since the early days of Dragon Magazine.

I understand where you are coming from but take notice that you are not including many things I suggested. You are wrapping it up to, if it can't be tested in a lab it's either a hallucination or coincidence(or fantasy), to make that claim is to assume science can describe everything but it actually can't, it uses a lot of theory to attempt to explain things that are unknown. "Just because it cannot be confirmed in a lab doesn't make it any less real". You are more suggesting, just because you can't prove it, it's simply fantasy(Which is also not confirmable, which is jumping to conclusions on something that you can't confirm).

Guess I'll call you Lucifer ^^.

I was a bit late to the party, but GG really is amazing. Been meaning to read Buck Godot, too. You read it?

I think most aspies, or at least those with a hyperfocus/special interest type disposition will feel a degree of recognition whenever a spark enters "the madness place".

I do not include any of the things you suggested because they involve subjective interpretations of personal feelings and experiences, and such interpretations are prone to error -- especially when qualitative terms are used. They are also not predictive; that is, nothing you have said can consistently predict the outcome of any "magical" process.

And that is what defines "magic" as a wholly subjective belief system based on unpredictable results of unrelated random activities.