@MightyMikeT Well, it's two years old; how many people would really go through someone's back catalog, especially when they're approaching 400 videos?
I already have to disagree after 1 minute. Magic/supernatural would not be a violation of logic. If X violates logic, it doesnt exist. The supernatural would violate natural law. Thats a huge difference.
1. violations of natural order could happen without the existence of the supernatural
2. eliminating A,B and C doesnt make answer D the correct one. Thats an invalid way of showing that something is true. Your hypothetical test does in fact work in this way. You need to show something about the cause of the chicken poofing itself.
3. Even if you could show that the cause must be supernatural, you still dont have a clue WHAT kind of supernatural entity it is.
@KnownNoMore 1 - Definitionally, no, they really couldn't. If it ain't natural, it's supernatural, it's outside the natural order. By definition, that's PRECISELY what it is.
2 - Eliminating what isn't so leads us to what the correct answer is. That's how we determine what's true.
1. violation of natural order is possible by simply having a completely non-determinstic type of universe. Most events wouldnt be predictable in such a universe. But it is still all natural, just a different kind of natural universe.
2. Not thats actually falacious reasoning in most cases. Easily leads to false dichotomies. In most cases we dont know how many options there are in the first place. If evolution is false, creationism isnt automatically true and vica versa.
@KnownNoMore 1 - Oh, *I* see...NOW you're changing the rules on us, moving the goal posts by postulating a universe OTHER than the one we live in. I'm interested in proving whether magic exists HERE, not in Fantasia, kiddo.
2 - I never said it was. YOU'RE erroneously assuming that I'm STARTING with a conclusion, which I'm not. I'm saying that you eliminate what's impossible AND SEE WHAT'S LEFT, not picking between preconceived notions.
Btw, it seems to me that you are describing something along the lines of what would convince you personally that magic exists, rather than showing some objective scientific test. In order for something to be a scientific explanation you need to be able to say something about WHAT the cause is and HOW it functions. Magic could indeed exist, but if it does, it is unknowable from a scientific perspective (and probably unknowable in general)
@KnownNoMore What I'm describing IS an empirical, objective, scientific test.
And you can't just SAY something like that magic would be unknowable from a scientific perspective; that's simply not the case. Science could EASILY identify, define, and explain magic...PROVIDED we acknowledge that magic is irrational, unlike the natural world.
It seems to me that YOU are the one running on automatic here, giving in to preconceptions rather than logic, reason, and evidence.
No BD it simply doesnt work that way. In order to have a scientific explanation for an event, you need to show what caused it and how. If for example evolution would be disproven and we simply cannot conceive of any natural way we could have come about naturally, does that mean we got here by supernatural means? No absolutely not. We could then only conclude that we dont know how we got here. Our ignorance and limitations would not be evidence of supernatural creation.
@KnownNoMore Look, I'm sorry, but there is simply no point in discussing this with you. You've already gotten the wrongest POSSIBLE idea of what my position is, and I really don't see you willing to hear that you're wrong about that. You're trying to refute something I'm not saying.
"It seems to me that YOU are the one running on automatic here, giving in to preconceptions rather than logic, reason, and evidence."
Well, sorry but it doesnt seem logical and reasonable to me that you can say that D is the right answer when A,B and C are eliminated (maybe its E,F or G, etc?) I would say you need to have actual evidence that D is the right answer, not merely eliminate alternatives of an unknown number of possibilities
You dont need to get angry. I didnt say that you said D was the right answer. Obviously you dont believe in magic. But you did imply in the video that if we can eliminate certain tricks that then it becomes reasonable to assume that magic might did it.
That was what I was refering to. You basically say: If not A, B and C then probably D. correct? (3:38-3:48)
@KnownNoMore By the logic you've been using, there is no way to determine that anything caused anything at all. YOU are making certain baseless assumptions, namely that there WILL be a rational explanation.
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left--however improbable--must be the truth.
Even if you had the ability to poof chickens into reality, this would still not make you a god. If "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." This would prove why religions at one point believed that lightning came from Zeus, but now he is somehow considered a myth. Not to long ago the world was thought to be flat. What force on Earth perpetuated this idea. It was good old ignorance sprinkled with a little religion.
@realigiousrayne Being indistinguioshable from magic refers only to PERCEPTION...not reality. Your inability to tell the difference has no bearing on the reality of what something IS.
Space Chickens! Chicken is my favorite word. I collect chickens to provide me with more opportunities to say chicken. I have many chickens throughout my home and am able to say chicken often enough that I need not mutter it to myself amongst society ^_^
@doaftheloaf If yer in Seattle today, that can be arranged...it's the Fremont Solstice Parade today, and I'll be in it...naked, bodypainted, and on rollerblades, as usual. :)
I would totally love to be able to fly, but a universe that is not essentially rational and orderly would be IMO too big of a price to pay. One of the things I love most about the universe is that it is (as far as I can tell) orderly in the sense that it can be analyzed by the scientific method. Even quantum physics is orderly in a way; if it was chaotic then you couldn't make predictions with it. I'm actually glad that the universe is rational and consistent, even if it means no awesome powers.
Sorry that was for ephemerance who seems to think that your definition of magic is incoherent.
I think it's a bit sloppy, but it's pretty clear what you are describing. I don't understand where his problem lies. As he has pointed out "he's just arguing semantics"!*
(* Yes ephem., I know that this old addage is short sighted, and that semantics is often important, but I do find your argument a bit pedantic.)
Why is it that so many atheists are into Star Wars what with all mysticism in the story line? I'm a pretty big trekky myself and I gotta say that only once did I ever personally see a transporter error occur and it was Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture. Loved this vid.
Maybe it's because we're willing to admit that Star Wars is, you know...fiction.
I gots me no problem whatsoever with magic and mysticism in fiction...or in the real world, if you can demonstrate its reality empirically.
Anyway, the Jedi, the Sith, and the Skywalker Family Spat are hardly my focus in SW anyway; I'm a Rebellion fan, personally. Wedge Antilles is the man! :D
i got thinking about what you said about how you'd prefer it if god didn't exist. and i was thinking if i felt the same... i guess i like to think if there is a god it wouldn't be the same as a christian god [or whatever] and it wouldn't judge if you'd been "good" or not based on a set of rules. don't really know what my point is lol
Your argument just doesn't make sense, because first you define magic as that which acts in an illogical or irrational way, and at 1:45 you stipulate that something either is or is not magical (basically: magic acts in logical way). So which one is it? You couldn't even give me an example of anything that would be magic.
There's a handful of these internal contradictions. Supposing you're just have a hard time expressing your idea clearly, feel free to pm me, there's no 500 word limit there.
Forget what humans knows and don't know, just imagine this:
1 - The universe has rules which are based in logic and have cause/effect continuity. This is known as science.
2 - Anything which VIOLATES those rules is what would be known as magic.
3 - Whether humans know all the universe's rules or mis-identify as magic science which they don't yet understand IS IRRELEVANT to whether is actually is magic or not.
"Magic does not graduate to science once humans have figured it out"
So you are establishing that magic is part of the unknown (or even so far to say that magic is specifically that which is permanently unknowable).
"A violation of the nature laws of the universe - as defined by science"
The problem is that science isn't a constant thing, and every scientific theory is falsifiable. Scientific theories adapt to new information. It would not be possible to "violate nature."
No, I am not establishing that magic is part of the unknown.
If I had to characterize the division I'm making as simply as that, it would be that science is rational and magic is not. That's the Big-Print, Easy-Reader™ version of it, but that's how I see the divide, more or less.
Rational in relations to what exactly? Our current understanding of the universe? Or the way we conceptualize something?
So is a square-triangle an example of something "magical"? I'm just not sure what would constitute magic in your eyes. Even the chicken example in your video you made clear that there must be a cause and effect relationship between the magic effect and the magic caster.
In terms of probability, anything is considered co-incidence.
Honestly, it seems like you're trying quite aggressively to not understand. This isn't difficult, really, it just requires a paradigm shift.
STOP thinking in terms of what humans know; the universe's rules are independent of human knowledge.
The basic premise is this: when effect follows cause, but the effect is both irrational and unrelated to the cause, it is what we'd call magic BECAUSE the universe's laws--science's laws--are rational. Magic is not. And human knowledge is irrelevant to it.
"universe's laws--science's laws--are rational. Magic is not"
Like I said, give me an example of something which operates in an irrational way? You need an example of something that is unquestionably magical.
"STOP thinking in terms of what humans know; the universe's rules are independent of human knowledge."
But we don't know the universe's rules, we reflect on our limited and falsifiable understanding of these rules. It's absolutely absurd to say that human understanding doesn't matter.
I CAN'T give you such an example, because I don't think anything magical actually exists. I have never seen ANYTHING that appears to have been a violation of the cause/effect relationship.
I'm saying that IF effect followed from cause, yet both were unrelated to each other--like chicken poofing, as in the video--that is something which I would likely consider magic.
No, we DON'T know the universe's laws...but human understanding is NOT required for something to BE magic, if anything is.
You're not saying that there couldn't be a drastic shift in our understanding, you're not even saying that God or sporadically appearing chickens are impossible, all you're saying is that magic isn't the right word for it.
How does this change the way we think about anything?
The human perspective is unimportant; if no humans were around to witness a magical event, it would still BE a magical event. Humans DO NOT have to be around to classify it so, any more than humans have to be around to distinguish combustion from freezing for such things to exist.
Stop thinking from the purely human perspective and understanding; it's hampering this entire conversation.
"Stop thinking from the purely human perspective and understanding"
I'm speaking from terms of things we can establish logically from evidence. Unfortunately, the human factor is always going to be part of this process. I don't see how you don't see that?
"if no humans were around to witness a magical event, it would still BE a magical event."
There's no way to prove that that is true, and it isn't something we can just arbitrarily assume.
Anyone's arguments are going involve a series of euphemistic terms that need to be unpack or decoded, so I'll break this down part by part and see if I have the right understanding of what you are trying to articulate.
It's my understanding that you are claiming that cosmological constants must logically remain constant. 0:49
"It is a violation of what should logically happen [in accordance with the known cosmological makeup]"
What necessitates this to remain constant or consistent?
There has never been an example, to date, of the natural order being violated, intentionally or unintentionally, with the possible exception of quantum physics. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude--if only tentatively--that the universe is simply a place in which logic and causality are essentially constant.
So much of how we interact with the world--one might almost say 100%--is predicated on this, like it or not, know it or not.
"There has never been an example, to date, of the natural order being violated"
Sure there is. Every time science makes a new discovery which overrules a previously accepted model, this is a violation of the perceived natural order. But science rolls with the punches, you're never going to have an example of something which is absolutely unexplainable. Consider dark matter. we could have said "oh no, nothing in the natural world can explain this," but instead we extrapolate the reason.
But that's exactly what I'm talking about and I covered that in the video; human perception has no bearing on reality, and things which were once considered magic turned out to be natural AFTER ALL.
Humans are wrong A LOT, and every time they think they've found something irrational and illogical which seems to BREAK the natural order, it turns out to be rational and natural AFTER ALL.
So, no, the natural and rational order HAS never been broken, it's just been THOUGHT to by fallible humans.
"things which were once considered magic turned out to be natural AFTER ALL... it's just been THOUGHT to by fallible humans."
And that's the point of Arthur C. Clarke's quote. When someone calls something "supernatural" or "magical" we should interpret their description as the communication of the idea "I don't know how it works."
It's completely dependent on human understanding, whether something is considered supernatural or not.
What would qualify as 'magical' / irrational in your eyes?
No, see, that's the thing: it's NOT dependent upon human understanding.
If humans understood magic, that wouldn't make it any more rational, that wouldn't force cause and effect to be logically related, even if the one always followed the other.
If the only dividing line between magic and science is understanding, there can be no such thing as magic.
No. Human understanding is NOT the key to what IS magic, only to what is THOUGHT magic. If magic exists, it will be irrational and illogical.
"If the only dividing line between magic and science is understanding, there can be no such thing as magic."
If the only difference between the two is understanding, magic and non-magic is just semantics. IF this is true, we must accept "magic" as an expression equivalent to "I don't know how this works." It's pointless to deal with the word in any other way.
Human understanding of a phenomenon HAS NO BEARING on the properties of that phenomenon. So it must be with magic.
This video is meant to define the properties something must have to be magic REGARDLESS of human understanding.
Those properties are irrationality and effect following cause but being unrelated to each other, all REGARDLESS of human understanding of the phenomenon. Humans might THINK a thing magic and be right or wrong, but that thinking is irrelevant.
Ugh. 500 characters is SO not enough to get the point across...
Even if humans were able to understand EVERY law of the rational universe, and yet there were still irrational happenings which could not be explained BEYOND "X follows Y despite X not being related to Y", those irrational happenings WOULD BE MAGIC, because they happen IN SPITE of the illogic.
And they would be illogical REGARDLESS of whether humans understood or were even there to witness. That's what MAKES them magic: illogic.
There is a lot here to unpack, so forgive me if I brush over something significant in your list of arguments. I'll try to take this step by step.
Arthur C. Clarke's quote brought forth the idea that what person A identifies as magic, person B identifies as a scientific phenomenon. Not the idea that magic and technology are two separate things. But regardless, if this is your view, it really doesn't matter what Arthur C. Clarke meant.
Well, I say they ARE separate things; magic is, by definition, an exception of the natural order, it's the natural order being turned on its ear, making the irrational and/or the impossible happen anyway.
She defines "magic" first so that there is something to work with, (note that she doesn't say magic doesn't exist) then she examines whether or not magic exists in this universe, which she successfully shows as "unlikely".
In other words, magic COULD exist but so far use of supernatural technology (magic) has been fruitless while use of technology which obeys "natural" laws of the universe hasn't.
Is her definition off? Well she was careful enough to anchor her definition to cause -> effect. This is the apparent "order" of the universe. It is "rational" because it follows human logic.
Now cause -> effect presents philosophical problems, but for immediate human purposes it is a concept that holds up. "Magic" would violate this. If something seemed to be magic but followed a natural order (i.e. you could explain the mechanics behind it) it wouldn't be magic.
The problem is that her definition of magic isn't logically coherent, it's an impossible and untestable definition because it's nonsensical.
"If you could explain the mechanics behind it, it wouldn't be magic"
What's the furthest level of science you've taken in your formal education? If you've at least taken senior highschool chemistry you would know that science does NOT work that way. It's subscriptive, not perscriptive.
When we try to decipher "the rules of the universe" we look at effects and extrapolate the cause. The moment that some effect happens that ought not happen (in accordance with our understanding), that does NOT make it illogical or magical. We simply realign our understanding of the effects in terms of causes which better reflect the full scope of the what is seen.
It would be impossible to rationally say "this happened and it was impossible." That's the point of Arthur C. Clarke's quote
"In her definition of magic? - Ok then what is it?"
Yes, I do disagree with her definition, it's non-existent by default because it is non-cognitive.
Every time someone refers to the supernatural, or magic, they are always referring to something which "lacks a clear explanation." And again, that's why advanced technology is indistinguishable (ontologically identical) from magic.
"She ends her video saying that if this could be demonstrated she would be a believer in magic."
There is absolutely no effect which could not be assimilated into a scientific understanding of the universe. You can have arguments for transcended revelation, which goes beyond conceptual reality (and then you could have something not "bound to logic") but you can't demonstrate that at all, it's untestable - both interpretations are true.
Easy there Mr. Ad Hominem, I get what you're saying and to be honest, I probably have more education than you do. However, instead of having a whip-it-out contest of stamped pieces of paper, let's look at why you agree with the author and don't even know it:
Your complaint of her definition of magic is that it is unscientific and illogical, but this is her point. You, my friend, are stuck in physicalism.
She is very careful to indicate WHAT KIND OF "magic" she is talking about by
(2) ...contrasting "supernatural magic" (which is exactly as she defines it) with "magic" that is, as you put it, "ontologically indetical" with advanced technology.
This latter is NOT the kind of magic she is discussing because it is not the kind of magic that believers of the supernatural claim exists.
These people reject physicalist explanations because they are DUALISTS, they believe exactly what the author describes in her video: that certain forces interact with our world that are
(3)... unobservable and unquantifiable, i.e. unscientific.
These people do not view phenomena which they believe to be supernatural as simply "lacking a clear explanation" (as you fasley claim) but believe that the explanation is indescribeable in terms of cause and effect, i.e. that there is no SCIENTIFIC answer.
Such dualists put themselves at direct odds with empirical science by claiming that a "non-physical" reality exists which interacts with this one in, again, unmeasurable ways.
(4)... To them, the only thing that is observable is the phenomenon because it has no physical/natural cause...it is supernatural.
I think we are all three in accordance that this sort of explanation is inadequate, but where you fail to challenge these people (let's call them "supernaturalists") the author of the video has somewhat succeeded.
It seems you are saying two things: 1. that such a magic cannot exist and 2. that if it did exist it would be measurable.
(5)... loop with the supernaturalists as they claim that god and/or magic do exist and are miraculously unmeasurable yet observable; that these forces change reality in instantaneous ways without a physical cause. You would claim that this is impossible because it is untestable (and I agree) but then you'll get the same argument again. This is precisely because these people disagree with (what appears to be) your second issue with the subject.
(6) What the author does in this video is concede the definition of magic to the "supernaturalists". She says "ok, magic comes from another reality" (a dual reality) "and it is fundamentaly unobservable here". It is NOT "just" advanced technology.
She then forces this argument BACK into the scientific realm by suggesting that this sort of force would have to be at least suprificially observable (the chicken summoning) and thus challenges advocates to demonstrate such evidence. Which, obviosuly
So again, you're picking a fight with phantoms. The author doesn't agree that her definition of magic is real, she is trying to describe that form of magic with which she does not agree so as to discredit it.
I guess MY problem is that your criticism is incoherent and really not a criticism at all. In my opinion, the author has accurately described the beliefs of "supernaturalists" and made a very simple argument from that. I can't really see where you disagree and I
"she is trying to describe that form of magic with which she does not agree so as to discredit it."
Yes, I agree, it's a wonderful strawman. Give me one example of something which would undeniably constitute a "magical" force under her definition, and I'll show you exactly why it isn't a valid example.
"author has accurately described the beliefs of supernaturalists"
Maybe I'm not taking the right angle on this. Please, describe for me what "illogical" and "violation of nature" means to you?
I disagree with the semantics she's using, her definition of "magic" isn't a logically coherent concept. It doesn't refer to anything. It can't refer to anything.
"I disagree with the semantics she's using, her definition of "magic" isn't a logically coherent concept. It doesn't refer to anything. It can't refer to anything." &
"Give me an example of a claim that someone has made that would justify that definition, and I'll show you where you went wrong. "
David Chalmers claim that p-zombies can exist.
Christians who claim that God exists outside of the physical world.
"New Age Pagans" who claim to communicate with non-physical entities...
Also, I want to point out that my thoughts are that the video is NOT worded "precisely" but that the ideas conveyed ARE STILL accurate and coherent.
Quantum physics, for example, are mentioned by the author as being outside the scope of her argument, and rightly so. We have not evolved mechanisms to view the world from the quantum perspective so it is not wrong for the author to base her video on a Newtonian perspective of cause and effect. From that perspective uncaused...
I do need to make one concession that I don't like the author's use of "illogical" but she is clear that she means "violation of the natural order" which again, to me, signify a newtonian universe.
"which again, to me, signify a newtonian universe."
Okay, I think I'm seeing this a little clearer. But I'm still puzzled at why this argument even exists then.
So the real question is (barring anything related to quantum mechanics) for evidence of something to justify magic in terms of Newtonian physics? So based on that paradigm, it is a violation of something which ought happen.
But why are we using outdated Newtonian physics as a standard? How do we say what isn't possible?
"From a Newtonian perspective of cause and effect... uncaused events ARE supernatural."
I disagree, "The dome" is a perfect illustration of how there could be acausal events in Newtonian physics. It might violate our expectations of what "ought" to happen in NP, but I'd argue that it doesn't automatically make it 'supernatural.'
First though, I think the OP made the video simply to put the burden of evidence on those who claim supernatural events are real. As I said before, her argument isn't as complicated as you are making it.
However, I like where this is going haha.
So anyway, the Dome is an interesting proof but not one without controversy. However, that doesn't change my definition of "supernatural"
By "natural" I am refering to the rational understanding
(2) of causation. That itself has been questioned both in terms of formal logic and mathematical representation. But that doesn't matter; human being still see the world based on their evolved sense of causation.
Now, I get that if there were magic it would be part of the universe and thus "natural", so my definition of "supernatural" can ONLY exist in contradiction to the rational perspective. In other words, "supernaturalists" use (or are subject to) the term "supernatural" only
(3) in relation to what is classicaly understood as "natural"- rational understanding of causation.
So in a sense what they consider to be "natural", convention would consider to be "supernatural".
If there were uncaused events occuring in our universe, or even "nonphysical" worlds interconnecting with ours, this would obviously be part of the universal system and thus not "supernatural". So THAT is semantics.
However, what I and the OP are saying, is that it is not the POSSIBILITY of
(4) the existance of so-called "supernatural" events, it is there actual existance and/or frequency of occurance.
In other words, "the Dome" may show that violations of determinism may be technically plausible in Newtonian mechanics (even though the proof is debated, however) but it does not give an account for a fequent occurance of such events. Indeed the fact that "the Dome" exists as an exception strengthens the position of Newtonian mechanics as the norm.
(5) use of the word "logic") the OP was more looking to challenge advocates of the "paranormal" or "spiritual" to show evidence where causation, as understood by rationalism, is violated with the frequency that they claim (miralces, ghosts, ESP, etc).
Again, if these things were real, then they would obviously be "natural" but they would generally (esp. in the case of magic) violate rational understanding of causation. In other words, they would be observable but impenetrable by technology.
Edit: Technology would not be able to produce the same effects....was my intention.
The definition of "magic" the author of the video is trying to establish is one that is beyond physical capabilities of the universe, sometimes reffered to as "metaphysical", which interact with the physical world. In other words, if it can be mimicked by technology, it's not magic. Christians do not believe that God is just a technology waiting to be discovered. They believe that to be inherently impossible.
""ok, magic comes from another reality" (a dual reality) "and it is fundamentaly unobservable here". It is NOT "just" advanced technology."
If we're talking about all planes of existence that interact with eachother, they are all naturalistic in some sense of the word, some are just on a different plane of existence. Google Edgar Allen Poe's "Mesmeric Revelation." It breaks down the concept of supernaturality into smaller logically sound chunks.
"the only thing that is observable is the phenomenon because it has no physical/natural cause...it is supernatural"
Are you saying that particle decay and quantum decoherence are supernatural because they are considered to be uncaused? Uncaused things aren't necessarily supernatural.
"These people do not view phenomena which they believe to be supernatural as simply lacking a clear explanation"
No, that's true, but that is a fundamental part of it. Other aspects of their supernatural belief are going to be clouded in abstract language. Think of Plato's allegory of the cave.
"believe that the explanation is indescribeable in terms of cause and effect"
Consider quantum decoherence, or particle decay, in most fields these occurrences, these are considered to be uncaused.
"This latter is NOT the kind of magic she is discussing because it is not the kind of magic that believers of the supernatural claim exists."
Do you have a specific claim for magic that you are addressing?
The entire point in Arthur C. Clarke's quote is that the only difference between magic and technology is how we identify it. They are the exact same effects given two different names. It isn't some separate entity, it's the same thing. One is just said in the context of not knowing.
"These people reject physicalist explanations because they are DUALISTS"
So to unpack this a little, physicalists (naturalists, whatever the title) believe that the experiences and measurements that we currently can make accurately reflect and include the full scope of what is real. Dualists simply say that there are elements of reality that exist which surpass the scope of what is scientifically testable.
"Easy there Mr. Ad Hominem... I probably have more education than you"
It wasn't an ad hom. and I wouldn't doubt it, but that's not the point, I was asking about whether you had specific pieces of education under your belt. You could be a lawyer who's gone through school for the last ten years, despite having more education in general, that doesn't mean that you have relevant education in the context of the topic.
Do you or do you not have senior highschool chemistry?
Everybody's fightin' about that "spoonful".... ;) I had a friend who was into Aleister Crowley and was convinced he could do magick. Never happened but with enough drugs or deprivation, it would SEEM like it did. "Apparent" does change everything - stage magicians "apparently" do lots of things but in reality it is an illusion.
Excellent video, BD - as always. UTube isn't a dissertation - I like listening to other people's ideas without each definition or nuance questioned & dissected.
But ninja-monkey-cyborg-zombie-assassins are my favorite. What do I do? I want to rate your video, but I can't bare the thought of missing out on the ninja-monkey-cyborg-zombie-assassins. Woe is me and my conundrum. :(
Point three is an extrapolation of the tenuously posited points one and two. I am of the opinion that we have a conflict of causality here: Rationality and Logic do not define Reality; Reality defines Rationality and Logic. Rationality and Logic are human constructs that act as placeholders for that which we understand. If we observe new things happening, then our understanding must change to match reality, not the other way around :\
this leads me to disagree with point 2. The appearance of defying logic as we presently know it does not necessarily constitute the actual violation of logic as it truly may be. Case in point, Airplanes do NOT defy logic, but only because we have gained an understanding OF the natural phenomena that aerodynamic flight take advantage of. Were we to witness 'magic', it would prompt hypothesis and batteries of tests continuing and self-revising until we DO understand the laws behind it.
That's why Point 4 is there:the human ability to determine whether something is sorcery or not is irrelevant to its actual true nature.
It's no different than if we're presented with envelopes and asked to pick the one with money in it; our ability to tell whether there'z money inside doesn't change whether there IS money inside or not.
I must apologize bionicdance, but I'm afraid I must respectuflly disagree on point 1. We lack the necessary observational abilities to determine if something we are seeing IS, in fact, "sorcery". It is a subtle but nonetheless concrete point that we may only acknowledge when something -appears- to be thaumaturgical, sorcerous, or miraculous. Even with all observational abilities trained on a hypothetical 'magical' event, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Hmm. I see what you mean with this video, but there's another point to be made.
In your chicken situation, clearly you are in a universe where natural law *does* allow chickens to be poofed from nowhere. The observers don't know how, maybe you don't even know how, but the universe allows it.
Thus, it is "natural".
Somebody just needs to do enough experiments on you to find out that natural law. :D
The point about magic is that it is an EXCEPTION to the natural order. And the natural order is that cause and effect are directly related and the one always follows from the other. Anything which violates that is, by definition, unnatural...which should not imply impossible.
It's like Christopher Hitchens says when he's describing religious miracles: "The laws of the universe have been suspended."
Ah, but it must be within the laws of the universe for some of those laws to apparently be suspended. Sure, the law of gravity says things fall, yet we build & fly planes.
Actually, your example *had* cause/effect. Every time you waved your figures and said the word, a chicken appeared. That we don't know how it works doesn't mean the one didn't cause the other.
In short, if it *can* happen in the universe, then it must be obeying natural laws. We just don't understand them sufficiently.
But that's just it...the game IS the universe; what comes from OUTSIDE the game, disrupting it, is a violation of the universe's rules. That's EXACTLY the point.
What you are doing is trying to redefine what constitutes the universe, rather than looking at the universe and realizing that it may not be the only thing out there somewhere, that the universe may have boundaries which can be breached.
The universe is literally *everything, everywhere*.
That stuff "out there" is *also* part of the universe, there can *be* no "outside".
Humans have repeatedly changed their ideas of what is in the universe and how big it is, but it is still *everything*.
It was once thought that all we could see in the night sky was in a space not much bigger than the Moon's orbit. When we realized the stars were much further, we didn't call the solar system the universe and create a new, bigger word.
No, the universe is NOT everything, everywhere. The universe is what we live in, it is the substance that comprised the Big Bang. If your definition of the universe is anything else, You're Doing It Wrong™.
So, the Big Bang created space/time and matter/energy, all that stuff. How can something be somewhere else unless it has space/time to be in and matter/energy to be composed of? It's a meaningless statement.
"Universe" means "the whole". As I demonstrated with the universe growing from the solar system to all that other stuff, if we somehow find something "outside", then "universe" will come to encompass that too.
The Big Bang didn't CREATE anything; the Big Bang was a SPLITTING APART of everything contained within a specific singularity.
Universe does NOT mean "the whole"; look it up. Universe means: "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm."
"Throughout space", it says; the clear implication is that anything OUTSIDE space is not part of the universe, that there is more BEYOND the scope of the Big Banged universe.
I don't see any implication of anything *beyond* space in that definition. Again, it's meaningless to say so. Space is where stuff is. If space stops at some point, then by definition, there's no place or stuff past that point.
universe - from Latin universum, neuter of universus 'combined into one, whole'
totality - the whole of something
cosmos - the universe seen as a well-ordered whole
None of the definition mention the Big Bang. That's purely *your* definition.
Tell me, what was OUTSIDE the singularity prior to the Big Bang, hmm? I'll tell you what was inside: SPACE. That's right. Everything which can be called space was INSIDE that singularity, as was the rest of the universe.
If there was anything outside that singularity, it would not be PART of the universe...yet it would still exist, if there is anything there.
And you can redefine words all you like, but that won't change what we're talking about here.
A true singularity has *no* inside. It's a point, not containing anything.
There was nothing outside, because that implies space for it to be in. If that space touched this space, they would be 1 space.
I'm not redefining words, I'm using the dictionary words.
That we currently view "the universe" as coincident with "that which resulted from the Big Bang" doesn't mean they are defined as the same thing, nor that our view won't change.
No, you're NOT using dictionary words. And dictionary words are NOT what's needed here anyway; this is encyclopedia stuff.
Besides, you're not going to change the scope of this video by changing words around; you're simply talking about something OTHER than what this video dealt with, and you're not going to make your point any more valid by playing word games.
Regarding definitions: I'd like to point out that your definitions in the video are not what the words generally mean. I'm using Oxford American Dictionary, but feel free to use others...
magic - the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. (Like you, I'm ignoring the stage magic & beauty definitions.)
Note that it only says *apparently*, and mysterious *or* supernatural, where you claim it must be supernatural.
Sorry, but dictionary(dot)com has a definition more in line with which I'm talking about:
Supernatural: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena
Your version has "apparently", mine does not. And again, the definitions of the words DON'T CHANGE MY POINT. You're not going to invalidate what I'm ACTUALLY talking about by pointing out where a word might mean something different. Stop evading the point with pedantry, thanks.
supernatural - attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Note too that beyond understanding is distinct from beyond the laws. Your video insists on the latter, but we can only *know* the former. My position is that the very idea of "beyond the laws of nature" is meaningless.
Your point 1: "Magic is supernatural". That's only 1 permutation of the possible dictionary meanings.
That much is clear because what you've done is nit-pick. NOT address the actual point being raised, and then expect me to back up an argument I'm not even making based on your nit-picks. That's a strawman argument if I've ever seen one.
And fine, good...unsub. If you're going to be THAT butthurt over being called out on your bullshit, I really don't NEED subscribers like you.
The basic assumptions are NOT wrong; you were quibbling over definitions instead of actually addressing the points raised. You weren't addressing WHAT I was saying, you were addressing HOW I was saying it.
And I'm NOT dogmatic about it, I'm just not willing to be railroaded into defending a position that I'm not taking, which is where your line of reasoning was leading if I'd followed it instead of resisting.
If anybody was being dogmatic, it was YOU, choosing definitions over the ACTUAL points
What we're talking about IS the universe as a scientist would define it, namely the universe that resulted from the Big Bang, and NOT anything that might have existed outside it or on some different plane of reality. Whether you like the ACTUAL definition of the word or not--which does NOT match YOUR definition of it--it doesn't change the subject matter of MY video...or what scientists mean when they say "universe".
And THAT universe, the one scientists talk about, has some very specific rules. And if those rules are ever violated, that violation would likely take the form of illogical--even impossible-- things being allowed to happen in our otherwise rational universe. And we would likely call such irrational things "magic", specifically BECAUSE they break the rules of our universe, as scientists would define it.
D'you get it now, or are you just being difficult?
We *assume* the world always works logically and rationally, and science has done pretty well with that. If your magic happened, that would prove us wrong.
And just how do you declare anything "impossible"? That just means it breaks the rules *as we know them*. We already know we don't know all the rules perfectly.
I understand what your saying. I just claim you are wrong due to false assumptions.
We don't ASSUME that the world works logically and rationally; we have never found a SCRAP of evidence to suggest otherwise...and we've been looking!
Certainly the baseline at this point is one of empirical rationalism and logic; if violations of logic exist in the universe, they're rare enough to have NEVER been found in any testable fashion, making them exceptions rather than the rule.
Likewise, we have no evidence that gods don't exist. Or the FSM, or fairies. Thus we assume they don't. As you should be aware, lack of evidence is not evidence against. It doesn't *prove* the negative.
I agree that the world *seems* to work logically and rationally. But we'll never *know* it does, no matter how often we fail to find any illogic.
Anyway, at this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the whole "magic" thing.
If we had to wait to know 100% about something, we'd NEVER get anything done; obviously, science and scientists don't work that way.
We can certainly know that something is so likely to be non-existent that to suggest otherwise is synonymous with madness; such is the case with things like magic or gods, because given what we DO know with a high degree of certainty, such things would HAVE to be a violation of the laws of the universe.
A mere century ago, people were equally certain that space and time were separate things, & that they couldn't be "warped" as relativity shows. It was "madness" to propose otherwise.
Now, scientists fully accept relativity, as do many non-scientists.
Besides, "getting things done" is not the same as "knowing". Newton's theory of gravity "got things done". Einstein pointed out that it wasn't quite the truth, only an approximation. For most purposes, we still use the approximation.
This is precisely why I put Point 4 in the fucking video, a point which people seem to be consistently ignoring.
What humans know or don't know is IRRELEVANT to what something actually IS. it doesn't matter whether humans have the universe 100% figured out or not.
The universe is literally *everything, everywhere*.
That stuff "out there" is *also* part of the universe, there can *be* no "outside".
Humans have repeatedly changed their ideas of what is in the universe and how big it is, but it is still *everything*.
It was once thought that all we could see in the night sky was in a space not much bigger than the Moon's orbit. When we realized the stars were much further, we didn't call the solar system the universe and create a new, bigger word.
To answer your question, brief pulses of low energy anti-protons should destabilize the transporters annular confinement beam, resulting in a destabilization of the pattern buffers, making transport impossible, but should not cause any harm to the chickens.
I noticed that right after the post, but if I were to remove the comment and try to re-post with an new word YT would not allow it. I am terribly disappointed in myself, I hoped that no one would pick up on it. or if they did, would be kind enough not to mention it.
A, it's not that hard to fool YT. They embed an invisible character in each post, to detect cut & paste. You just have to find and remove it, which isn't too hard (at least on my Mac...).
Well, embedded in the html of the page are the 3 characters EF BB BF (that's in hexadecimal notation). They normally come up invisible, but they do get carried over in a copy/paste.
For a small pasted quote, if you just use the cursor-right key to step thru, you may see the cursor not move for a keypress. That's the invisible bit. After you have stepped right across it, just hit delete.
If you paste into a hex-editor (I use Hex Fiend), it will show as a question mark that doesn't belong.
I have discovered an easy, foolproof way to find the invisible characters.
On my browser (Safari), on the View menu, there's a Text Encoding. Changing it to Western (Mac OS Roman) makes them visible. Other browsers should have a similar option, and anything but Unicode/UTF-8/Default should work.
The speed of the Poof is the Hard factor Instantaneous magic should not be a determining criteria I have seen naked natives in Australia manifest a desired object by dreaming them into existence May take a few days and often much dreaming but the requested item appears If the dreaming is too slow they make Art Art always gets results They draw sing and dream some more And the object comes It may be a long Poof but it is a Poof non the less
Magic is, well, magical.:p
HimesInu 1 month ago
Very well said Keight ! I hadn't actually seen this one yet =)
MightyMikeT 7 months ago
@MightyMikeT Well, it's two years old; how many people would really go through someone's back catalog, especially when they're approaching 400 videos?
Thanks for checking it, tho! :)
BionicDance 7 months ago
I already have to disagree after 1 minute. Magic/supernatural would not be a violation of logic. If X violates logic, it doesnt exist. The supernatural would violate natural law. Thats a huge difference.
KnownNoMore 10 months ago
@KnownNoMore You need to watch the whole thing BEFORE you criticize it.
And that's the POINT of magic: that's it's a violation of the natural order. That's precisely what magic IS.
...if it exists at all.
BionicDance 10 months ago
@BionicDance
1. violations of natural order could happen without the existence of the supernatural
2. eliminating A,B and C doesnt make answer D the correct one. Thats an invalid way of showing that something is true. Your hypothetical test does in fact work in this way. You need to show something about the cause of the chicken poofing itself.
3. Even if you could show that the cause must be supernatural, you still dont have a clue WHAT kind of supernatural entity it is.
KnownNoMore 10 months ago
@KnownNoMore 1 - Definitionally, no, they really couldn't. If it ain't natural, it's supernatural, it's outside the natural order. By definition, that's PRECISELY what it is.
2 - Eliminating what isn't so leads us to what the correct answer is. That's how we determine what's true.
3 - So what? That's not the question here.
BionicDance 10 months ago
@BionicDance
1. violation of natural order is possible by simply having a completely non-determinstic type of universe. Most events wouldnt be predictable in such a universe. But it is still all natural, just a different kind of natural universe.
2. Not thats actually falacious reasoning in most cases. Easily leads to false dichotomies. In most cases we dont know how many options there are in the first place. If evolution is false, creationism isnt automatically true and vica versa.
KnownNoMore 10 months ago
@KnownNoMore 1 - Oh, *I* see...NOW you're changing the rules on us, moving the goal posts by postulating a universe OTHER than the one we live in. I'm interested in proving whether magic exists HERE, not in Fantasia, kiddo.
2 - I never said it was. YOU'RE erroneously assuming that I'm STARTING with a conclusion, which I'm not. I'm saying that you eliminate what's impossible AND SEE WHAT'S LEFT, not picking between preconceived notions.
BionicDance 10 months ago
@BionicDance
Btw, it seems to me that you are describing something along the lines of what would convince you personally that magic exists, rather than showing some objective scientific test. In order for something to be a scientific explanation you need to be able to say something about WHAT the cause is and HOW it functions. Magic could indeed exist, but if it does, it is unknowable from a scientific perspective (and probably unknowable in general)
KnownNoMore 10 months ago
@KnownNoMore What I'm describing IS an empirical, objective, scientific test.
And you can't just SAY something like that magic would be unknowable from a scientific perspective; that's simply not the case. Science could EASILY identify, define, and explain magic...PROVIDED we acknowledge that magic is irrational, unlike the natural world.
It seems to me that YOU are the one running on automatic here, giving in to preconceptions rather than logic, reason, and evidence.
BionicDance 10 months ago
@BionicDance
No BD it simply doesnt work that way. In order to have a scientific explanation for an event, you need to show what caused it and how. If for example evolution would be disproven and we simply cannot conceive of any natural way we could have come about naturally, does that mean we got here by supernatural means? No absolutely not. We could then only conclude that we dont know how we got here. Our ignorance and limitations would not be evidence of supernatural creation.
KnownNoMore 10 months ago
@KnownNoMore Look, I'm sorry, but there is simply no point in discussing this with you. You've already gotten the wrongest POSSIBLE idea of what my position is, and I really don't see you willing to hear that you're wrong about that. You're trying to refute something I'm not saying.
BionicDance 10 months ago
@BionicDance
"It seems to me that YOU are the one running on automatic here, giving in to preconceptions rather than logic, reason, and evidence."
Well, sorry but it doesnt seem logical and reasonable to me that you can say that D is the right answer when A,B and C are eliminated (maybe its E,F or G, etc?) I would say you need to have actual evidence that D is the right answer, not merely eliminate alternatives of an unknown number of possibilities
Or am I saying something unreasonable here?
KnownNoMore 10 months ago
@KnownNoMore Yes, you DID say something unreasonable. And you continue to.
You've STARTED from the position that I'M saying that D is the right answer WHEN I NEVER FUCKING SAID ANYTHING OF THE KIND.
Until you get THAT through your head, this conversation is over.
BionicDance 10 months ago
@BionicDance
You dont need to get angry. I didnt say that you said D was the right answer. Obviously you dont believe in magic. But you did imply in the video that if we can eliminate certain tricks that then it becomes reasonable to assume that magic might did it.
That was what I was refering to. You basically say: If not A, B and C then probably D. correct? (3:38-3:48)
KnownNoMore 10 months ago
@KnownNoMore By the logic you've been using, there is no way to determine that anything caused anything at all. YOU are making certain baseless assumptions, namely that there WILL be a rational explanation.
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left--however improbable--must be the truth.
BionicDance 10 months ago
eh, maybe
froggymicwop 11 months ago
Even if you had the ability to poof chickens into reality, this would still not make you a god. If "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." This would prove why religions at one point believed that lightning came from Zeus, but now he is somehow considered a myth. Not to long ago the world was thought to be flat. What force on Earth perpetuated this idea. It was good old ignorance sprinkled with a little religion.
realigiousrayne 11 months ago
@realigiousrayne Being indistinguioshable from magic refers only to PERCEPTION...not reality. Your inability to tell the difference has no bearing on the reality of what something IS.
BionicDance 11 months ago
i still say it's a trick, and Mr Satan disapproves...
GeneralMontague 11 months ago
Space Chickens! Chicken is my favorite word. I collect chickens to provide me with more opportunities to say chicken. I have many chickens throughout my home and am able to say chicken often enough that I need not mutter it to myself amongst society ^_^
Smokatronic 1 year ago
I don't think magic is possible.
juliecranford 1 year ago
@juliecranford Neither do I...but if it WERE, this is how it seems it must be defined.
BionicDance 1 year ago
Wow i'm kind of hungry ... ALAKAZAM!!!!!!!!
TheWorldofwarren 1 year ago
i certainly wouldn't mind seeing BD stripped naked poofing chickens out of nowhere.
actually, the hell with the chickens lol...
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@doaftheloaf If yer in Seattle today, that can be arranged...it's the Fremont Solstice Parade today, and I'll be in it...naked, bodypainted, and on rollerblades, as usual. :)
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance next time, give me more notice lol...
i've actually never been to seattle...and have only been to the states once. i live in swift current, saskatchewan myself.
but if i'm ever in the area, i'll look you up. if you're ever in my neck of the woods, lemme know.
in any event, have a nice day, and i hope you had fun in the parade.
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
magic doesn't exist.
period
equallyeasilyfuqyou 1 year ago 2
I would totally love to be able to fly, but a universe that is not essentially rational and orderly would be IMO too big of a price to pay. One of the things I love most about the universe is that it is (as far as I can tell) orderly in the sense that it can be analyzed by the scientific method. Even quantum physics is orderly in a way; if it was chaotic then you couldn't make predictions with it. I'm actually glad that the universe is rational and consistent, even if it means no awesome powers.
VulcanFleet 1 year ago
Magic is the greatest point guard ever.
QualityControlTV 1 year ago
interesting
thetanplzer 1 year ago
I guess a better question is: can you conceive of a "magic" that is NOT technological at any point? Or better yet, that is not material in nature?
adelma01 2 years ago
Conceive of, yes; I have a wonderful imagination.
Actually think for a moment that it exists? That would take some proving, lemme tell ya.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Sorry that was for ephemerance who seems to think that your definition of magic is incoherent.
I think it's a bit sloppy, but it's pretty clear what you are describing. I don't understand where his problem lies. As he has pointed out "he's just arguing semantics"!*
(* Yes ephem., I know that this old addage is short sighted, and that semantics is often important, but I do find your argument a bit pedantic.)
adelma01 2 years ago
Why is it that so many atheists are into Star Wars what with all mysticism in the story line? I'm a pretty big trekky myself and I gotta say that only once did I ever personally see a transporter error occur and it was Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture. Loved this vid.
imjustagirl776 2 years ago
Maybe it's because we're willing to admit that Star Wars is, you know...fiction.
I gots me no problem whatsoever with magic and mysticism in fiction...or in the real world, if you can demonstrate its reality empirically.
Anyway, the Jedi, the Sith, and the Skywalker Family Spat are hardly my focus in SW anyway; I'm a Rebellion fan, personally. Wedge Antilles is the man! :D
BionicDance 2 years ago
i got thinking about what you said about how you'd prefer it if god didn't exist. and i was thinking if i felt the same... i guess i like to think if there is a god it wouldn't be the same as a christian god [or whatever] and it wouldn't judge if you'd been "good" or not based on a set of rules. don't really know what my point is lol
tesscrazy 2 years ago
Your argument just doesn't make sense, because first you define magic as that which acts in an illogical or irrational way, and at 1:45 you stipulate that something either is or is not magical (basically: magic acts in logical way). So which one is it? You couldn't even give me an example of anything that would be magic.
There's a handful of these internal contradictions. Supposing you're just have a hard time expressing your idea clearly, feel free to pm me, there's no 500 word limit there.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
It's actually VERY simple.
Forget what humans knows and don't know, just imagine this:
1 - The universe has rules which are based in logic and have cause/effect continuity. This is known as science.
2 - Anything which VIOLATES those rules is what would be known as magic.
3 - Whether humans know all the universe's rules or mis-identify as magic science which they don't yet understand IS IRRELEVANT to whether is actually is magic or not.
How difficult is that to understand???
BionicDance 2 years ago
cont'd.2
"Magic does not graduate to science once humans have figured it out"
So you are establishing that magic is part of the unknown (or even so far to say that magic is specifically that which is permanently unknowable).
"A violation of the nature laws of the universe - as defined by science"
The problem is that science isn't a constant thing, and every scientific theory is falsifiable. Scientific theories adapt to new information. It would not be possible to "violate nature."
Ephemerance 2 years ago
No, I am not establishing that magic is part of the unknown.
If I had to characterize the division I'm making as simply as that, it would be that science is rational and magic is not. That's the Big-Print, Easy-Reader™ version of it, but that's how I see the divide, more or less.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"science is rational and magic is not."
Rational in relations to what exactly? Our current understanding of the universe? Or the way we conceptualize something?
So is a square-triangle an example of something "magical"? I'm just not sure what would constitute magic in your eyes. Even the chicken example in your video you made clear that there must be a cause and effect relationship between the magic effect and the magic caster.
In terms of probability, anything is considered co-incidence.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Honestly, it seems like you're trying quite aggressively to not understand. This isn't difficult, really, it just requires a paradigm shift.
STOP thinking in terms of what humans know; the universe's rules are independent of human knowledge.
The basic premise is this: when effect follows cause, but the effect is both irrational and unrelated to the cause, it is what we'd call magic BECAUSE the universe's laws--science's laws--are rational. Magic is not. And human knowledge is irrelevant to it.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"universe's laws--science's laws--are rational. Magic is not"
Like I said, give me an example of something which operates in an irrational way? You need an example of something that is unquestionably magical.
"STOP thinking in terms of what humans know; the universe's rules are independent of human knowledge."
But we don't know the universe's rules, we reflect on our limited and falsifiable understanding of these rules. It's absolutely absurd to say that human understanding doesn't matter.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
I CAN'T give you such an example, because I don't think anything magical actually exists. I have never seen ANYTHING that appears to have been a violation of the cause/effect relationship.
I'm saying that IF effect followed from cause, yet both were unrelated to each other--like chicken poofing, as in the video--that is something which I would likely consider magic.
No, we DON'T know the universe's laws...but human understanding is NOT required for something to BE magic, if anything is.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"Ugh. 500 characters is SO not enough to get the point across..."
Haha, I feel the same way. No worries.
"I CAN'T give you such an example, because I don't think anything magical actually exists."
Then you're making an unfalsifiable claim. There's no way to prove you wrong because the very thing you are looking for is tautologically impossible.
"human understanding is NOT required for something to BE magic"
Not to be magic, but considered magic.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
I'm not MAKING a claim; I'm DEFINING SOMETHING.
I may be defining something that doesn't exist, because it is impossible, but that doesn't change the classification any.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"I'm not MAKING a claim; I'm DEFINING SOMETHING."
That's semantics! I call shenanigans.
You're not saying that there couldn't be a drastic shift in our understanding, you're not even saying that God or sporadically appearing chickens are impossible, all you're saying is that magic isn't the right word for it.
How does this change the way we think about anything?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
The human perspective is unimportant; if no humans were around to witness a magical event, it would still BE a magical event. Humans DO NOT have to be around to classify it so, any more than humans have to be around to distinguish combustion from freezing for such things to exist.
Stop thinking from the purely human perspective and understanding; it's hampering this entire conversation.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"Stop thinking from the purely human perspective and understanding"
I'm speaking from terms of things we can establish logically from evidence. Unfortunately, the human factor is always going to be part of this process. I don't see how you don't see that?
"if no humans were around to witness a magical event, it would still BE a magical event."
There's no way to prove that that is true, and it isn't something we can just arbitrarily assume.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
You keep insisting on confining the CONCEPT of something to what has or can be proved; we'll never get anywhere so long as you're doing that.
I freely admit that to determine the REALITY of these things, yes, we'll need to verify the reality of them, find empirical proof for them.
But right now we're just talking about DEFINITIONS.
Anything which is possible by the rules of the universe is science/nature. Anything violating those rules is magic. Agreeing to that is step one.
BionicDance 2 years ago
cont'd.1
Anyone's arguments are going involve a series of euphemistic terms that need to be unpack or decoded, so I'll break this down part by part and see if I have the right understanding of what you are trying to articulate.
It's my understanding that you are claiming that cosmological constants must logically remain constant. 0:49
"It is a violation of what should logically happen [in accordance with the known cosmological makeup]"
What necessitates this to remain constant or consistent?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"Necessitates" is the wrong word.
There has never been an example, to date, of the natural order being violated, intentionally or unintentionally, with the possible exception of quantum physics. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude--if only tentatively--that the universe is simply a place in which logic and causality are essentially constant.
So much of how we interact with the world--one might almost say 100%--is predicated on this, like it or not, know it or not.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"There has never been an example, to date, of the natural order being violated"
Sure there is. Every time science makes a new discovery which overrules a previously accepted model, this is a violation of the perceived natural order. But science rolls with the punches, you're never going to have an example of something which is absolutely unexplainable. Consider dark matter. we could have said "oh no, nothing in the natural world can explain this," but instead we extrapolate the reason.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
But that's exactly what I'm talking about and I covered that in the video; human perception has no bearing on reality, and things which were once considered magic turned out to be natural AFTER ALL.
Humans are wrong A LOT, and every time they think they've found something irrational and illogical which seems to BREAK the natural order, it turns out to be rational and natural AFTER ALL.
So, no, the natural and rational order HAS never been broken, it's just been THOUGHT to by fallible humans.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"things which were once considered magic turned out to be natural AFTER ALL... it's just been THOUGHT to by fallible humans."
And that's the point of Arthur C. Clarke's quote. When someone calls something "supernatural" or "magical" we should interpret their description as the communication of the idea "I don't know how it works."
It's completely dependent on human understanding, whether something is considered supernatural or not.
What would qualify as 'magical' / irrational in your eyes?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
No, see, that's the thing: it's NOT dependent upon human understanding.
If humans understood magic, that wouldn't make it any more rational, that wouldn't force cause and effect to be logically related, even if the one always followed the other.
If the only dividing line between magic and science is understanding, there can be no such thing as magic.
No. Human understanding is NOT the key to what IS magic, only to what is THOUGHT magic. If magic exists, it will be irrational and illogical.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"If the only dividing line between magic and science is understanding, there can be no such thing as magic."
If the only difference between the two is understanding, magic and non-magic is just semantics. IF this is true, we must accept "magic" as an expression equivalent to "I don't know how this works." It's pointless to deal with the word in any other way.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Again, I DEEPLY disagree.
Human understanding of a phenomenon HAS NO BEARING on the properties of that phenomenon. So it must be with magic.
This video is meant to define the properties something must have to be magic REGARDLESS of human understanding.
Those properties are irrationality and effect following cause but being unrelated to each other, all REGARDLESS of human understanding of the phenomenon. Humans might THINK a thing magic and be right or wrong, but that thinking is irrelevant.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Ugh. 500 characters is SO not enough to get the point across...
Even if humans were able to understand EVERY law of the rational universe, and yet there were still irrational happenings which could not be explained BEYOND "X follows Y despite X not being related to Y", those irrational happenings WOULD BE MAGIC, because they happen IN SPITE of the illogic.
And they would be illogical REGARDLESS of whether humans understood or were even there to witness. That's what MAKES them magic: illogic.
BionicDance 2 years ago
There is a lot here to unpack, so forgive me if I brush over something significant in your list of arguments. I'll try to take this step by step.
Arthur C. Clarke's quote brought forth the idea that what person A identifies as magic, person B identifies as a scientific phenomenon. Not the idea that magic and technology are two separate things. But regardless, if this is your view, it really doesn't matter what Arthur C. Clarke meant.
cont.1.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Well, I say they ARE separate things; magic is, by definition, an exception of the natural order, it's the natural order being turned on its ear, making the irrational and/or the impossible happen anyway.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Omg Emphemerence, you are all over the place!
She defines "magic" first so that there is something to work with, (note that she doesn't say magic doesn't exist) then she examines whether or not magic exists in this universe, which she successfully shows as "unlikely".
In other words, magic COULD exist but so far use of supernatural technology (magic) has been fruitless while use of technology which obeys "natural" laws of the universe hasn't.
adelma01 2 years ago
Is her definition off? Well she was careful enough to anchor her definition to cause -> effect. This is the apparent "order" of the universe. It is "rational" because it follows human logic.
Now cause -> effect presents philosophical problems, but for immediate human purposes it is a concept that holds up. "Magic" would violate this. If something seemed to be magic but followed a natural order (i.e. you could explain the mechanics behind it) it wouldn't be magic.
So the only hope for you
adelma01 2 years ago
is if violations of cause and effect were found to be "natural", i.e. part of the universe.
She ends her video saying that if this could be demonstrated she would be a believer in magic.
It really seems, as the author said, that you are "trying very hard to not understand."
adelma01 2 years ago
In other words, it is not clear where you disagree:
In her definition of magic? - Ok then what is it?
In her denial in demonstrable evidence of magic?- Do you have some?
In her description of "rational" as believing that effects follow causes?- Have fun with this, as that is essentially the defintion of "rational".
adelma01 2 years ago
Man, you're right in line with her.
The problem is that her definition of magic isn't logically coherent, it's an impossible and untestable definition because it's nonsensical.
"If you could explain the mechanics behind it, it wouldn't be magic"
What's the furthest level of science you've taken in your formal education? If you've at least taken senior highschool chemistry you would know that science does NOT work that way. It's subscriptive, not perscriptive.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
When we try to decipher "the rules of the universe" we look at effects and extrapolate the cause. The moment that some effect happens that ought not happen (in accordance with our understanding), that does NOT make it illogical or magical. We simply realign our understanding of the effects in terms of causes which better reflect the full scope of the what is seen.
It would be impossible to rationally say "this happened and it was impossible." That's the point of Arthur C. Clarke's quote
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"In her definition of magic? - Ok then what is it?"
Yes, I do disagree with her definition, it's non-existent by default because it is non-cognitive.
Every time someone refers to the supernatural, or magic, they are always referring to something which "lacks a clear explanation." And again, that's why advanced technology is indistinguishable (ontologically identical) from magic.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"She ends her video saying that if this could be demonstrated she would be a believer in magic."
There is absolutely no effect which could not be assimilated into a scientific understanding of the universe. You can have arguments for transcended revelation, which goes beyond conceptual reality (and then you could have something not "bound to logic") but you can't demonstrate that at all, it's untestable - both interpretations are true.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Easy there Mr. Ad Hominem, I get what you're saying and to be honest, I probably have more education than you do. However, instead of having a whip-it-out contest of stamped pieces of paper, let's look at why you agree with the author and don't even know it:
Your complaint of her definition of magic is that it is unscientific and illogical, but this is her point. You, my friend, are stuck in physicalism.
She is very careful to indicate WHAT KIND OF "magic" she is talking about by
adelma01 2 years ago
(2) ...contrasting "supernatural magic" (which is exactly as she defines it) with "magic" that is, as you put it, "ontologically indetical" with advanced technology.
This latter is NOT the kind of magic she is discussing because it is not the kind of magic that believers of the supernatural claim exists.
These people reject physicalist explanations because they are DUALISTS, they believe exactly what the author describes in her video: that certain forces interact with our world that are
adelma01 2 years ago
(3)... unobservable and unquantifiable, i.e. unscientific.
These people do not view phenomena which they believe to be supernatural as simply "lacking a clear explanation" (as you fasley claim) but believe that the explanation is indescribeable in terms of cause and effect, i.e. that there is no SCIENTIFIC answer.
Such dualists put themselves at direct odds with empirical science by claiming that a "non-physical" reality exists which interacts with this one in, again, unmeasurable ways.
adelma01 2 years ago
(4)... To them, the only thing that is observable is the phenomenon because it has no physical/natural cause...it is supernatural.
I think we are all three in accordance that this sort of explanation is inadequate, but where you fail to challenge these people (let's call them "supernaturalists") the author of the video has somewhat succeeded.
It seems you are saying two things: 1. that such a magic cannot exist and 2. that if it did exist it would be measurable.
The 1st will put you on a
adelma01 2 years ago
(5)... loop with the supernaturalists as they claim that god and/or magic do exist and are miraculously unmeasurable yet observable; that these forces change reality in instantaneous ways without a physical cause. You would claim that this is impossible because it is untestable (and I agree) but then you'll get the same argument again. This is precisely because these people disagree with (what appears to be) your second issue with the subject.
In other words, you are begging the question.
adelma01 2 years ago
(6) What the author does in this video is concede the definition of magic to the "supernaturalists". She says "ok, magic comes from another reality" (a dual reality) "and it is fundamentaly unobservable here". It is NOT "just" advanced technology.
She then forces this argument BACK into the scientific realm by suggesting that this sort of force would have to be at least suprificially observable (the chicken summoning) and thus challenges advocates to demonstrate such evidence. Which, obviosuly
adelma01 2 years ago
(7) they can't.
So again, you're picking a fight with phantoms. The author doesn't agree that her definition of magic is real, she is trying to describe that form of magic with which she does not agree so as to discredit it.
I guess MY problem is that your criticism is incoherent and really not a criticism at all. In my opinion, the author has accurately described the beliefs of "supernaturalists" and made a very simple argument from that. I can't really see where you disagree and I
adelma01 2 years ago
(8) don't think that you can either.
adelma01 2 years ago
"she is trying to describe that form of magic with which she does not agree so as to discredit it."
Yes, I agree, it's a wonderful strawman. Give me one example of something which would undeniably constitute a "magical" force under her definition, and I'll show you exactly why it isn't a valid example.
"author has accurately described the beliefs of supernaturalists"
Maybe I'm not taking the right angle on this. Please, describe for me what "illogical" and "violation of nature" means to you?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"I can't really see where you disagree and I"
I disagree with the semantics she's using, her definition of "magic" isn't a logically coherent concept. It doesn't refer to anything. It can't refer to anything.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"I disagree with the semantics she's using, her definition of "magic" isn't a logically coherent concept. It doesn't refer to anything. It can't refer to anything." &
"Give me an example of a claim that someone has made that would justify that definition, and I'll show you where you went wrong. "
David Chalmers claim that p-zombies can exist.
Christians who claim that God exists outside of the physical world.
"New Age Pagans" who claim to communicate with non-physical entities...
adelma01 2 years ago
... or "spirits".
Also, I want to point out that my thoughts are that the video is NOT worded "precisely" but that the ideas conveyed ARE STILL accurate and coherent.
Quantum physics, for example, are mentioned by the author as being outside the scope of her argument, and rightly so. We have not evolved mechanisms to view the world from the quantum perspective so it is not wrong for the author to base her video on a Newtonian perspective of cause and effect. From that perspective uncaused...
adelma01 2 years ago
...events ARE supernatural.
I do need to make one concession that I don't like the author's use of "illogical" but she is clear that she means "violation of the natural order" which again, to me, signify a newtonian universe.
adelma01 2 years ago
"which again, to me, signify a newtonian universe."
Okay, I think I'm seeing this a little clearer. But I'm still puzzled at why this argument even exists then.
So the real question is (barring anything related to quantum mechanics) for evidence of something to justify magic in terms of Newtonian physics? So based on that paradigm, it is a violation of something which ought happen.
But why are we using outdated Newtonian physics as a standard? How do we say what isn't possible?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"From a Newtonian perspective of cause and effect... uncaused events ARE supernatural."
I disagree, "The dome" is a perfect illustration of how there could be acausal events in Newtonian physics. It might violate our expectations of what "ought" to happen in NP, but I'd argue that it doesn't automatically make it 'supernatural.'
watch?v=KNnQxDVyd8M
Ephemerance 2 years ago
(1) Lol ok now we are having a good discussion.
First though, I think the OP made the video simply to put the burden of evidence on those who claim supernatural events are real. As I said before, her argument isn't as complicated as you are making it.
However, I like where this is going haha.
So anyway, the Dome is an interesting proof but not one without controversy. However, that doesn't change my definition of "supernatural"
By "natural" I am refering to the rational understanding
adelma01 2 years ago
(2) of causation. That itself has been questioned both in terms of formal logic and mathematical representation. But that doesn't matter; human being still see the world based on their evolved sense of causation.
Now, I get that if there were magic it would be part of the universe and thus "natural", so my definition of "supernatural" can ONLY exist in contradiction to the rational perspective. In other words, "supernaturalists" use (or are subject to) the term "supernatural" only
adelma01 2 years ago
(3) in relation to what is classicaly understood as "natural"- rational understanding of causation.
So in a sense what they consider to be "natural", convention would consider to be "supernatural".
If there were uncaused events occuring in our universe, or even "nonphysical" worlds interconnecting with ours, this would obviously be part of the universal system and thus not "supernatural". So THAT is semantics.
However, what I and the OP are saying, is that it is not the POSSIBILITY of
adelma01 2 years ago
(4) the existance of so-called "supernatural" events, it is there actual existance and/or frequency of occurance.
In other words, "the Dome" may show that violations of determinism may be technically plausible in Newtonian mechanics (even though the proof is debated, however) but it does not give an account for a fequent occurance of such events. Indeed the fact that "the Dome" exists as an exception strengthens the position of Newtonian mechanics as the norm.
So, I think (despite a fuzzy
adelma01 2 years ago
(5) use of the word "logic") the OP was more looking to challenge advocates of the "paranormal" or "spiritual" to show evidence where causation, as understood by rationalism, is violated with the frequency that they claim (miralces, ghosts, ESP, etc).
Again, if these things were real, then they would obviously be "natural" but they would generally (esp. in the case of magic) violate rational understanding of causation. In other words, they would be observable but impenetrable by technology.
adelma01 2 years ago
Edit: Technology would not be able to produce the same effects....was my intention.
The definition of "magic" the author of the video is trying to establish is one that is beyond physical capabilities of the universe, sometimes reffered to as "metaphysical", which interact with the physical world. In other words, if it can be mimicked by technology, it's not magic. Christians do not believe that God is just a technology waiting to be discovered. They believe that to be inherently impossible.
adelma01 2 years ago
""ok, magic comes from another reality" (a dual reality) "and it is fundamentaly unobservable here". It is NOT "just" advanced technology."
If we're talking about all planes of existence that interact with eachother, they are all naturalistic in some sense of the word, some are just on a different plane of existence. Google Edgar Allen Poe's "Mesmeric Revelation." It breaks down the concept of supernaturality into smaller logically sound chunks.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"This is precisely because these people disagree with (what appears to be) your second issue with the subject."
I never agreed with your definition of magic, I'm saying it doesn't describe anything.
Give me an example of a claim that someone has made that would justify that definition, and I'll show you where you went wrong.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"the only thing that is observable is the phenomenon because it has no physical/natural cause...it is supernatural"
Are you saying that particle decay and quantum decoherence are supernatural because they are considered to be uncaused? Uncaused things aren't necessarily supernatural.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"These people do not view phenomena which they believe to be supernatural as simply lacking a clear explanation"
No, that's true, but that is a fundamental part of it. Other aspects of their supernatural belief are going to be clouded in abstract language. Think of Plato's allegory of the cave.
"believe that the explanation is indescribeable in terms of cause and effect"
Consider quantum decoherence, or particle decay, in most fields these occurrences, these are considered to be uncaused.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"This latter is NOT the kind of magic she is discussing because it is not the kind of magic that believers of the supernatural claim exists."
Do you have a specific claim for magic that you are addressing?
The entire point in Arthur C. Clarke's quote is that the only difference between magic and technology is how we identify it. They are the exact same effects given two different names. It isn't some separate entity, it's the same thing. One is just said in the context of not knowing.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"These people reject physicalist explanations because they are DUALISTS"
So to unpack this a little, physicalists (naturalists, whatever the title) believe that the experiences and measurements that we currently can make accurately reflect and include the full scope of what is real. Dualists simply say that there are elements of reality that exist which surpass the scope of what is scientifically testable.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"Easy there Mr. Ad Hominem... I probably have more education than you"
It wasn't an ad hom. and I wouldn't doubt it, but that's not the point, I was asking about whether you had specific pieces of education under your belt. You could be a lawyer who's gone through school for the last ten years, despite having more education in general, that doesn't mean that you have relevant education in the context of the topic.
Do you or do you not have senior highschool chemistry?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"Do you or do you not have senior highschool chemistry? "
yes
adelma01 2 years ago
Well since you're an A-gate Ms. BionicDance it would be trivial for you to nano assemble one out of atomic feedstock.
So you'd run out of mass eventually, that's how i'd test your poofing ability.
Keippernicus 2 years ago
Everybody's fightin' about that "spoonful".... ;) I had a friend who was into Aleister Crowley and was convinced he could do magick. Never happened but with enough drugs or deprivation, it would SEEM like it did. "Apparent" does change everything - stage magicians "apparently" do lots of things but in reality it is an illusion.
Excellent video, BD - as always. UTube isn't a dissertation - I like listening to other people's ideas without each definition or nuance questioned & dissected.
popecoyote1st 2 years ago
But ninja-monkey-cyborg-zombie-assassins are my favorite. What do I do? I want to rate your video, but I can't bare the thought of missing out on the ninja-monkey-cyborg-zombie-assassins. Woe is me and my conundrum. :(
ChristopherAtheist 2 years ago
concluded,
Point three is an extrapolation of the tenuously posited points one and two. I am of the opinion that we have a conflict of causality here: Rationality and Logic do not define Reality; Reality defines Rationality and Logic. Rationality and Logic are human constructs that act as placeholders for that which we understand. If we observe new things happening, then our understanding must change to match reality, not the other way around :\
Stonehawk 2 years ago
continued,
this leads me to disagree with point 2. The appearance of defying logic as we presently know it does not necessarily constitute the actual violation of logic as it truly may be. Case in point, Airplanes do NOT defy logic, but only because we have gained an understanding OF the natural phenomena that aerodynamic flight take advantage of. Were we to witness 'magic', it would prompt hypothesis and batteries of tests continuing and self-revising until we DO understand the laws behind it.
Stonehawk 2 years ago
That's why Point 4 is there:the human ability to determine whether something is sorcery or not is irrelevant to its actual true nature.
It's no different than if we're presented with envelopes and asked to pick the one with money in it; our ability to tell whether there'z money inside doesn't change whether there IS money inside or not.
BionicDance 2 years ago
I must apologize bionicdance, but I'm afraid I must respectuflly disagree on point 1. We lack the necessary observational abilities to determine if something we are seeing IS, in fact, "sorcery". It is a subtle but nonetheless concrete point that we may only acknowledge when something -appears- to be thaumaturgical, sorcerous, or miraculous. Even with all observational abilities trained on a hypothetical 'magical' event, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Stonehawk 2 years ago
*edit: need
AcanLord 2 years ago
you see to turn the SNAP!BAWK! sound into a meme. seriously do it.
AcanLord 2 years ago
Maybe any time I'm debunking theist magic claims, that'll be the sound effect to represent god doing something. :)
BionicDance 2 years ago
Awesome. yeah totally, do it.
AcanLord 2 years ago
"strip me naked". gladly
sorry sorry had to say it ;)
SkeptikSnarf 2 years ago
You can produce chickens by waving your arms, but you don't believe in magic? Inconceivable!
yadabub 2 years ago
You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
BionicDance 2 years ago
Hmm. I see what you mean with this video, but there's another point to be made.
In your chicken situation, clearly you are in a universe where natural law *does* allow chickens to be poofed from nowhere. The observers don't know how, maybe you don't even know how, but the universe allows it.
Thus, it is "natural".
Somebody just needs to do enough experiments on you to find out that natural law. :D
jursamaj 2 years ago
Nuh-uh.
The point about magic is that it is an EXCEPTION to the natural order. And the natural order is that cause and effect are directly related and the one always follows from the other. Anything which violates that is, by definition, unnatural...which should not imply impossible.
It's like Christopher Hitchens says when he's describing religious miracles: "The laws of the universe have been suspended."
BionicDance 2 years ago
Ah, but it must be within the laws of the universe for some of those laws to apparently be suspended. Sure, the law of gravity says things fall, yet we build & fly planes.
Actually, your example *had* cause/effect. Every time you waved your figures and said the word, a chicken appeared. That we don't know how it works doesn't mean the one didn't cause the other.
In short, if it *can* happen in the universe, then it must be obeying natural laws. We just don't understand them sufficiently.
jursamaj 2 years ago
I covered ALL of this in the video, frankly.
BionicDance 2 years ago
It took a bit, but I came up with a metaphor:
Imagine a computer chess game (2 players, not player vs. computer).
Now there are rules that chess operates by, and the game enforces them. As a player, these are the "natural laws".
Now a hacker comes along and moves a bishop from a black square to q white one. This violates the rules, the "laws": it's "magic".
*But*, the laws of the *computer* allow for it to happen. Turns out, the game isn't the universe, the computer is.
jursamaj 2 years ago
But that's just it...the game IS the universe; what comes from OUTSIDE the game, disrupting it, is a violation of the universe's rules. That's EXACTLY the point.
What you are doing is trying to redefine what constitutes the universe, rather than looking at the universe and realizing that it may not be the only thing out there somewhere, that the universe may have boundaries which can be breached.
BionicDance 2 years ago
The universe is literally *everything, everywhere*.
That stuff "out there" is *also* part of the universe, there can *be* no "outside".
Humans have repeatedly changed their ideas of what is in the universe and how big it is, but it is still *everything*.
It was once thought that all we could see in the night sky was in a space not much bigger than the Moon's orbit. When we realized the stars were much further, we didn't call the solar system the universe and create a new, bigger word.
jursamaj 2 years ago
No, the universe is NOT everything, everywhere. The universe is what we live in, it is the substance that comprised the Big Bang. If your definition of the universe is anything else, You're Doing It Wrong™.
BionicDance 2 years ago
So, the Big Bang created space/time and matter/energy, all that stuff. How can something be somewhere else unless it has space/time to be in and matter/energy to be composed of? It's a meaningless statement.
"Universe" means "the whole". As I demonstrated with the universe growing from the solar system to all that other stuff, if we somehow find something "outside", then "universe" will come to encompass that too.
And we will still live in that universe.
jursamaj 2 years ago
The Big Bang didn't CREATE anything; the Big Bang was a SPLITTING APART of everything contained within a specific singularity.
Universe does NOT mean "the whole"; look it up. Universe means: "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm."
"Throughout space", it says; the clear implication is that anything OUTSIDE space is not part of the universe, that there is more BEYOND the scope of the Big Banged universe.
So your definition is wrong.
BionicDance 2 years ago
I don't see any implication of anything *beyond* space in that definition. Again, it's meaningless to say so. Space is where stuff is. If space stops at some point, then by definition, there's no place or stuff past that point.
universe - from Latin universum, neuter of universus 'combined into one, whole'
totality - the whole of something
cosmos - the universe seen as a well-ordered whole
None of the definition mention the Big Bang. That's purely *your* definition.
jursamaj 2 years ago
You don't even seem to know what space IS.
Tell me, what was OUTSIDE the singularity prior to the Big Bang, hmm? I'll tell you what was inside: SPACE. That's right. Everything which can be called space was INSIDE that singularity, as was the rest of the universe.
If there was anything outside that singularity, it would not be PART of the universe...yet it would still exist, if there is anything there.
And you can redefine words all you like, but that won't change what we're talking about here.
BionicDance 2 years ago
A true singularity has *no* inside. It's a point, not containing anything.
There was nothing outside, because that implies space for it to be in. If that space touched this space, they would be 1 space.
I'm not redefining words, I'm using the dictionary words.
That we currently view "the universe" as coincident with "that which resulted from the Big Bang" doesn't mean they are defined as the same thing, nor that our view won't change.
jursamaj 2 years ago
No, you're NOT using dictionary words. And dictionary words are NOT what's needed here anyway; this is encyclopedia stuff.
Besides, you're not going to change the scope of this video by changing words around; you're simply talking about something OTHER than what this video dealt with, and you're not going to make your point any more valid by playing word games.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Regarding definitions: I'd like to point out that your definitions in the video are not what the words generally mean. I'm using Oxford American Dictionary, but feel free to use others...
magic - the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. (Like you, I'm ignoring the stage magic & beauty definitions.)
Note that it only says *apparently*, and mysterious *or* supernatural, where you claim it must be supernatural.
jursamaj 2 years ago
Sorry, but dictionary(dot)com has a definition more in line with which I'm talking about:
Supernatural: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena
Your version has "apparently", mine does not. And again, the definitions of the words DON'T CHANGE MY POINT. You're not going to invalidate what I'm ACTUALLY talking about by pointing out where a word might mean something different. Stop evading the point with pedantry, thanks.
BionicDance 2 years ago
supernatural - attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Note too that beyond understanding is distinct from beyond the laws. Your video insists on the latter, but we can only *know* the former. My position is that the very idea of "beyond the laws of nature" is meaningless.
Your point 1: "Magic is supernatural". That's only 1 permutation of the possible dictionary meanings.
jursamaj 2 years ago
Your point 2: "Magic is a violation of logic". That's mostly a restatement of #1; it's an assumption; and via my prior statements, it's meaningless.
Between points 2 & 3, you said therefore, but 3 is not a conclusion from 1 & 2, merely another premise.
Also, you say "with the possible exception of quantum mechanics", which invalidates your claim that there's no evidence for acausality.
jursamaj 2 years ago
No, it isn't. If you'd actually stop to listen to the DIALOGUE instead of just reading the bullet points, you'd see the error in your interpretation.
And you're taking the points out of context instead of viewing the whole, how the points interrelate to each other.
Frankly, between disputing word definitions and taking points out of context, you're not arguing in good faith; until you start, I'm done with you.
BionicDance 2 years ago
If you go back and review, you'll see that some of what I type was *from* the commentary, not just the bullet points. I *did* listen.
(And just to nit-pick, it was monologue. These comments between us are dialogue.)
If the points alone are using words incorrectly and making unstated assumptions, no amount of context can fix that.
But that's OK. Don't worry about being "done with me", because, I unsubbed now.
jursamaj 2 years ago
No, you DIDN'T listen.
That much is clear because what you've done is nit-pick. NOT address the actual point being raised, and then expect me to back up an argument I'm not even making based on your nit-picks. That's a strawman argument if I've ever seen one.
And fine, good...unsub. If you're going to be THAT butthurt over being called out on your bullshit, I really don't NEED subscribers like you.
BionicDance 2 years ago
To point out that your basic assumptions are wrong is not nitpicking. The point can't be addressed if the premises don't work.
It's not that I'm "butthurt" over it. It's that you are so dogmatic about it that you can't see your mistakes.
jursamaj 2 years ago
The basic assumptions are NOT wrong; you were quibbling over definitions instead of actually addressing the points raised. You weren't addressing WHAT I was saying, you were addressing HOW I was saying it.
And I'm NOT dogmatic about it, I'm just not willing to be railroaded into defending a position that I'm not taking, which is where your line of reasoning was leading if I'd followed it instead of resisting.
If anybody was being dogmatic, it was YOU, choosing definitions over the ACTUAL points
BionicDance 2 years ago
Your point 4: "Magic is not defined by human understanding". The above dictionary definitions disagree.
"Magic does not become science". Yet many things have gone from being considered (literally) magic to being scientifically explained.
jursamaj 2 years ago
What we're talking about IS the universe as a scientist would define it, namely the universe that resulted from the Big Bang, and NOT anything that might have existed outside it or on some different plane of reality. Whether you like the ACTUAL definition of the word or not--which does NOT match YOUR definition of it--it doesn't change the subject matter of MY video...or what scientists mean when they say "universe".
BionicDance 2 years ago
And THAT universe, the one scientists talk about, has some very specific rules. And if those rules are ever violated, that violation would likely take the form of illogical--even impossible-- things being allowed to happen in our otherwise rational universe. And we would likely call such irrational things "magic", specifically BECAUSE they break the rules of our universe, as scientists would define it.
D'you get it now, or are you just being difficult?
BionicDance 2 years ago
We *assume* the world always works logically and rationally, and science has done pretty well with that. If your magic happened, that would prove us wrong.
And just how do you declare anything "impossible"? That just means it breaks the rules *as we know them*. We already know we don't know all the rules perfectly.
I understand what your saying. I just claim you are wrong due to false assumptions.
jursamaj 2 years ago
We don't ASSUME that the world works logically and rationally; we have never found a SCRAP of evidence to suggest otherwise...and we've been looking!
Certainly the baseline at this point is one of empirical rationalism and logic; if violations of logic exist in the universe, they're rare enough to have NEVER been found in any testable fashion, making them exceptions rather than the rule.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Certainly, we have no evidence.
Likewise, we have no evidence that gods don't exist. Or the FSM, or fairies. Thus we assume they don't. As you should be aware, lack of evidence is not evidence against. It doesn't *prove* the negative.
I agree that the world *seems* to work logically and rationally. But we'll never *know* it does, no matter how often we fail to find any illogic.
Anyway, at this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the whole "magic" thing.
jursamaj 2 years ago
If we had to wait to know 100% about something, we'd NEVER get anything done; obviously, science and scientists don't work that way.
We can certainly know that something is so likely to be non-existent that to suggest otherwise is synonymous with madness; such is the case with things like magic or gods, because given what we DO know with a high degree of certainty, such things would HAVE to be a violation of the laws of the universe.
BionicDance 2 years ago
[sigh]
A mere century ago, people were equally certain that space and time were separate things, & that they couldn't be "warped" as relativity shows. It was "madness" to propose otherwise.
Now, scientists fully accept relativity, as do many non-scientists.
Besides, "getting things done" is not the same as "knowing". Newton's theory of gravity "got things done". Einstein pointed out that it wasn't quite the truth, only an approximation. For most purposes, we still use the approximation.
jursamaj 2 years ago
This is precisely why I put Point 4 in the fucking video, a point which people seem to be consistently ignoring.
What humans know or don't know is IRRELEVANT to what something actually IS. it doesn't matter whether humans have the universe 100% figured out or not.
BionicDance 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The universe is literally *everything, everywhere*.
That stuff "out there" is *also* part of the universe, there can *be* no "outside".
Humans have repeatedly changed their ideas of what is in the universe and how big it is, but it is still *everything*.
It was once thought that all we could see in the night sky was in a space not much bigger than the Moon's orbit. When we realized the stars were much further, we didn't call the solar system the universe and create a new, bigger word.
jursamaj 2 years ago
Your face is magic.
Palluke 2 years ago
To answer your question, brief pulses of low energy anti-protons should destabilize the transporters annular confinement beam, resulting in a destabilization of the pattern buffers, making transport impossible, but should not cause any harm to the chickens.
Good vid!
premed2 2 years ago
Hey, you used "destabilize" twice! Gotta change it up to be good Treknobabble... :)
jursamaj 2 years ago
I noticed that right after the post, but if I were to remove the comment and try to re-post with an new word YT would not allow it. I am terribly disappointed in myself, I hoped that no one would pick up on it. or if they did, would be kind enough not to mention it.
But at least I got the specs right! :P
premed2 2 years ago
A, it's not that hard to fool YT. They embed an invisible character in each post, to detect cut & paste. You just have to find and remove it, which isn't too hard (at least on my Mac...).
jursamaj 2 years ago
Thanks! I didn't know that. I think me & my Mac can handle that.
premed2 2 years ago
Btw, what procedure do you use to detect the invisible character? Thanks.
premed2 2 years ago
Well, embedded in the html of the page are the 3 characters EF BB BF (that's in hexadecimal notation). They normally come up invisible, but they do get carried over in a copy/paste.
For a small pasted quote, if you just use the cursor-right key to step thru, you may see the cursor not move for a keypress. That's the invisible bit. After you have stepped right across it, just hit delete.
If you paste into a hex-editor (I use Hex Fiend), it will show as a question mark that doesn't belong.
jursamaj 2 years ago
It appears to always be right after a word
Altho in this case, a "word" includes the punctuation mark right after, as long as no space is between.
jursamaj 2 years ago
I have discovered an easy, foolproof way to find the invisible characters.
On my browser (Safari), on the View menu, there's a Text Encoding. Changing it to Western (Mac OS Roman) makes them visible. Other browsers should have a similar option, and anything but Unicode/UTF-8/Default should work.
jursamaj 2 years ago
Works great. Its so simple even a child can do it! ;-D
Thanks!
premed2 2 years ago
Strip me naked, and put me in a bare room. Alakazam! [Poof] [Cluck] Chicken I assure you I wasn't hiding that chicken um.... Anywhere.
startreking2007 2 years ago
Right Bio, our minds are open like a cracked window.... not so much a bottle of juice with a hole on the bottom.
If my analogy was bad or you didn't want to be lumped in to my opinion, I remind you I'm high on turkey meat.
btw, happy turkey day you tubies
Niveous23 2 years ago
chicken generation!!!!...damn funny...love your vids
longstrider9999 2 years ago
Choowbz 2 years ago
Do you have any video of this phenomenon?
1140Cecile 2 years ago
1140Cecile
Sadly no
I learnt this from living with natives in the 60s
I was the first white that was not a missionary or cop that many had ever seen or spoken to
I lived as they did and had no camera
i have some video work showing my own attempts from the 90s but that would take some time to sort and computerise
People don't believe video anyway
But it would make a good BlogTV type of thing
Or better still would be to show the formula's and concepts and let people do it themselves
Choowbz 2 years ago
More like a fizz then?
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Show us.
jacobromu 2 years ago
On a lighter note
I could say that on this day
people are less interested in making a chicken appear
Than making a Turkey Disappear
Choowbz 2 years ago
lol. I'm Canadian. We had thanksgiving like a month ago.
jacobromu 2 years ago