Magic in Space Opera

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I hate Subjective Reality with a deep and abiding passion.

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

I dislike it as well,

Could you please elaborate why?

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Who says magic has to be inexplicable?

The wizards do, apparently...

Originally Posted by Astromancer

The Wizards simply say"What we do works but it isn't science. So don't bother trying to say it is."

If it is quantifiable, it is subject to analysis. If it is subject to analysis it isn't "not science," it's just a different science. I'm always left wondering why no one is trying to learn anything about it, instead of just learning to do it.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by RyanW

That would annoy me to no end. I find the idea of magic that specifically avoids being proven somewhat ridiculous. Otherwise, magic is just science with lazy analysis.

I could see that on a Scientist's T-Shirt "Magic is just science with lazy analysis. The Wizards would snipe and vetch but what could they do without looking like creeps?

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Who says magic has to be inexplicable?

Good point, I've enough training in science to know that not all valid/useful explanations are scientific. Science has defined areas of analysis, that's why it can be science. Magic might be weird enough and art enough to be, like aesthetic judgment or ethics, analyzable, but not reducible to a science.

You have to define what magic is. In GURPS, for instance, magic is the ability to effect change using an energy called mana. It's very quantifiable, and in high- or ultra-tech settings there are even spells that deal with contemporary technologies, like mana coprocessors and so on. The only reason magic usually seems mysterious or inexplicable is that it's usually practiced by low-tech cultures that haven't developed the scientific method yet.

Yes, standard GURPS Magic should be a science. Spirit Magic ala GURPS wouldn't be, you're dealing with spirits, living things in their own way. M: tA magick and Realm Magic may or may not be.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by RyanW

If it is quantifiable, it is subject to analysis. If it is subject to analysis it isn't "not science," it's just a different science. I'm always left wondering why no one is trying to learn anything about it, instead of just learning to do it.

Is it though? Peter Watts' Echopraxia touches on the crisis of science running into things that work but are extremely impractical to quantify/analyse.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Could you please elaborate why?

Um, because it's a bad and silly idea?

If the nature of "Reality" was even influenced much less determined by mass belief we'd be living in a hybrid conservative Chinese/Indian paradigm rather than any sort of modern Western Technocracy.

Then there's things like the Earth would have been actually flat at one point and if so why would it ever have changed?

I could go on but you ought to be getting the idea. If the world was what people thought it was there never would have been any evidence to help change their beliefs.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by RyanW

If it is quantifiable, it is subject to analysis. If it is subject to analysis it isn't "not science," it's just a different science. I'm always left wondering why no one is trying to learn anything about it, instead of just learning to do it.

Science is a process. Magic is an art and/or a technology, or at least a force or principle by which some kinds of these things are made. There is no reason you can't apply the scientific method to studying magic.

If the answer to that is that magic doesn't give predictable results, then you've just stated a predictable result: that magic isn't predictable. Much about quantum mechanics isn't predictable either — science has determined that it's got an inherent randomness to it, and that, in itself is a scientific conclusion. So if science studies magic and determines that it's got a fundamental randomness to it, that's still a perfectly valid scientific result.

Magic is not fundamentally opposed to science. In some settings magic is fundamentally opposed to technology, but science does not equal technology.

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Good point, I've enough training in science to know that not all valid/useful explanations are scientific. Science has defined areas of analysis, that's why it can be science. Magic might be weird enough and art enough to be, like aesthetic judgment or ethics, analyzable, but not reducible to a science.

New fields of science emerge whenever there is a need. If something doesn't fit into one of them, someone will find new fields of science. A scientific field is just a collection of tools with which to apply the scientific method.

You can scientifically analyze art. You can analyze properties of pigments, canvas, stone, building materials; you can calculate shapes, structures, frequencies; you can study the effects of art on the brain, the types of art different cultures use, how art influences decision-making and perception of history, why people make art. Science and art are not fundamentally opposed.

Yes, standard GURPS Magic should be a science. Spirit Magic ala GURPS wouldn't be, you're dealing with spirits, living things in their own way.

Why can't this be studied scientifically? You can study the social structures of spirit society, the mechanisms by which the wizard calls a spirit, the means by which the spirit produces whatever effect the wizard asks for, the physical properties of spirits.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Could you please elaborate why?

There are two, potentially conflated elements of "subjective reality" in RPGs.

Reality level of the materials.
Reality shared by PCs.

The first is absolutely infuriating, because now, in each subjectivized supplement, I now must decide not only if I will use the supplement in general, but what the reality within is for each setting assertion. Is the narrator of the setting assertion reliable? Is this assertion compatible with other supplements? Further, this was often an apparent attempt to excuse lack of continuity checking.

The second issue is that it means I may need to have different descriptions for what something means for different players' characters. Exempli gratia: Mage: The Ascension... If I have a player who's a hermetic, and a player who's in the Anarchy faction... I new need two different views of the same paranormal events. Sure, the shared reality is the same, when not in the Æther. But if they're outside the standard earth, the same location appears differently based upon the tradition. It just upped my prep time.

Note that, for me, this does not include "quantum play" - things remaining undefined until defined by player actions or GM fiat. I'm good with indeterminism; I am not good with dual explicit states in contradiction.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

If the answer to that is that magic doesn't give predictable results, then you've just stated a predictable result: that magic isn't predictable. Much about quantum mechanics isn't predictable either — science has determined that it's got an inherent randomness to it, and that, in itself is a scientific conclusion. So if science studies magic and determines that it's got a fundamental randomness to it, that's still a perfectly valid scientific result.

Going too far (which is where you would have to go to make "It's magic, science has no hold" a meaningful statement) probably makes it's so random that no one could prove magic as anyone claims to understand it exists at all. Magic that is consistent enough that someone could be reasonably confident that some effect will occur when they "do magic" is consistent enough to be studied.

Even if you don't know why moving a wand in a particular way produces a shower of sparks, if you know that it does you have a basis to begin experimentation. How does varying the motion change the result? Does teaching the technique to someone but telling them it will produce bubbles instead of sparks have an effect? We still don't fully know the mechanism by which acetaminophen (or paracetamol) or bismuth subsalicylate work, despite both being in widely tested and used for over hundred years.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

If the answer to that is that magic doesn't give predictable results, then you've just stated a predictable result: that magic isn't predictable. Much about quantum mechanics isn't predictable either — science has determined that it's got an inherent randomness to it, and that, in itself is a scientific conclusion. So if science studies magic and determines that it's got a fundamental randomness to it, that's still a perfectly valid scientific result.

Magic is not fundamentally opposed to science. In some settings magic is fundamentally opposed to technology, but science does not equal technology.

It would be like analyzing paintings. You could explain many things, come up with useful rules of composition and technique, but the spark that differentiates a great painting from a merely well made painting isn't reducible to analysis.

New fields of science emerge whenever there is a need. If something doesn't fit into one of them, someone will find new fields of science. A scientific field is just a collection of tools with which to apply the scientific method.

True, and my knowledge of the history of science argues in your favor. Please, sir, with respect, take the point.

You can scientifically analyze art. You can analyze properties of pigments, canvas, stone, building materials; you can calculate shapes, structures, frequencies; you can study the effects of art on the brain, the types of art different cultures use, how art influences decision-making and perception of history, why people make art. Science and art are not fundamentally opposed.

Science and art aren't opposed but the difference between talent and genius isn't analyzable. Mainly because it is infuriatingly hard to nail down.

Why can't this be studied scientifically? You can study the social structures of spirit society, the mechanisms by which the wizard calls a spirit, the means by which the spirit produces whatever effect the wizard asks for, the physical properties of spirits.

Nailing down the details of spirit "society" is like using glue to hold down shadows.