"Oh yeah, there's some naturally occuring rocks that telekinetically attract other material using an invisible field that also doesn't require any input of energy."
i wonder, what makes it so you can feed energy into an object and make it move using commands, its a real thing but people don't want to believe unless they see it and many people can't handle that reality.
My o-chem prof and a student were discussing a color-change reaction
Me: "Magic!!!"
Them: "it's not magic it's science!!!"
Me: "You're illustrating the DANCE OF THE ELECTRONS here. Explain to me how this is not magic"
It also aligns with Clarke's observation, interestingly, because the more advanced a technology is the closer it matches the outcomes it's designed to make happen (and the more complex, therefore incomprehensible, and therefore obfuscated its intermediate steps become).
Yes, I was thinking the same thing! I mean, we're kinda there, we say "Hey Siri turn on the lights" or "Alexa secretly record me for the cops", without (most people 😄) knowing what's being done.
But for fiction writers, it seems like a *really* good approach, if that makes sense?
It does ! I also think it suggests a good division of science-fiction vs fantasy: SF tries to give the illusion of a mechanistic world. I think it accounts beautifully for a lot of softer SF. Like in Star Wars (original), the Force is magic but FTL is physics bc FTL has mechanical *vibes*
Technically detailed fantasy (your structured, science-like magic systems) might be harder to fit but I think it probably works if we consider the complexity of outcomes compared to the implied complexity of the causes. Often based in human will (outcome-based) or intangible fluid (no structure)
Hmm, I always thought this physics/magic mechanism/outcome dichotomy held up but this made me realize there's actually three phenomena. Mechanism-driven (physics) & outcome-driven, but the latter divides further into cool outcomes (magic) & uncool outcomes ("thou shalt not move perpetually" ok MOM)
I recently joined the Peanut app, seeking a community of women to discuss motherhood and childbirth. It's been an uplifting experience, but today I feel compelled to share something different. I'm deeply thankful to Braokalo Minugigra for helping restore my relationship in less than 48 hours.
are you sure about this? maybe you find yourself in a Dan Brown story where all thermo profs are in a super secret branch of the illuminati and because you have discovered the truth they will catch you, torture you until your are rescued by some Pierce Brosnan's clone
Given my old thermo prof's attitude and personality I'd probably end up in a pile of corpses along with a couple of grad student TAs, and a Frances McDormand clone would have to investigate.
Title text: "'At the stroke of midnight, your brother will be hurtling sideways at an altitude of 150 meters' is a regular physics prediction about your nonmagical trebuchet, whereas 'you are cursed to build a brother-launching trebuchet' falls out of the Lagrangian."
Perhaps this explains why David Goodstein felt he had to open his textbook on thermo this way:
“Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933."
Comments
"Oh yeah, there's some naturally occuring rocks that telekinetically attract other material using an invisible field that also doesn't require any input of energy."
Suuuuuuuuure, "science".
Me: "Magic!!!"
Them: "it's not magic it's science!!!"
Me: "You're illustrating the DANCE OF THE ELECTRONS here. Explain to me how this is not magic"
But for fiction writers, it seems like a *really* good approach, if that makes sense?
(fight starts)
https://youtu.be/Mw-brvKO-Z0?feature=shared
In German it is called studentische Hilfskraft (student assistant).
“Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933."