The Church and Clarke's Third Law

[sidetrack]

I can see how Wander’s posting brings up how frustrating it is to know how the Church designates the points of derivation of a science and how to react/what attitude to hold when looking looking at the casual reasons for something apparently unknownable is knowable and can be traced to structurally descriptable stuff like sub-atomic particles

If I’ve never read it myself but I’ve officially given up on how Catholics seem to define ‘magic.’ They cite exorcists chastising those who engage in divination, tarot… but now I’ve often wondered at the possibility if such things could be subject to Clarke’s Third Law one day.

Take prediction for instance. I’ve never watched The Minority Report but I’ve seen it referenced more than a dozen times whenever I read about data and analytics technology…

One might say that the ability to ‘see’ the future is simply a highly advanced ability to absorb and process already existing information. After that it’s just a matter of theorizing what’s most likely to happen. The concept is there whether you put it in a mutant, a magician, computer etc.

… Let’s suspend our disbelief further and look at the Third Law from a fantasy perspective. When I draw a symbol on a wall that causes ice to form upon it, is it occult or is it some form of technology? … suppose someone managed to discover something that allowed humans to perform similar feats. Is it the occult or is it just some form of new science that needs to be further explored?

This may all… be in… fiction… But hey, I’ve learned that fiction could very well be the strongest reflection of how real people think and react to certain ideas.

Okay . Can anyone here see

(i)The topic on the thread being applied to a linguist who is super keen on semiotics ,analyzing “spellcasting texts” from a magic practicing culture (present or past)

and who would team up with a neuroscientist who would say all this stuff on spellcasting with certain utterances or written deeds is a glimpse to an unaccounted for area of perception,consciousness and psycholinguistics

annoucing that previously “magical” abilities of spellcasting was really a method at tapping into previously unaccounted for parts of the brain,that may or may not (more or less) cause seemingly funky paranormal stuff.

I can see a combination of neurosci with heavy cross-cultural epistemological consideration as being the way the skepticism on the endurance limits achieved by yogi’s and martial artists and how branches of “Eastern” medicine like TCM’s acupuncture and emphasis on qi, pointing to an “embodied information a/o ability” within the human body and why the diagnoses of TCM “are-what-they-are” and function and why the stuff they do work out

(ii)If it ever turns out the Lovecraftian Old Ones like Cthulu,Azathoth, Ngyr-Korath etc turned out to have been hiding out in the dark matter and dark energy so much of the universe is said to be composed of (b/c come on,those names+big chunk of the universe being hard to describe=Lovecraftian).

… I am so running to Lost Wanderer and you guys for a meeting in the vein of youtu.be/wkh6if8TL2U?t=51s

(iii) Okay now imagine the talks the Pontifical Academy of Sciences would have in their field-days with (i) and (ii)

back to topic though ,guys

I think it’s important to realize/factor in how one of the reasons that the whole “everything can be explained rationally (by a method like science)” motto (made by the philosophical attitude created by ~200 yr old Positivism?) got the boot is b/c there comes a point when the gauging instruments by science and our own (the brain) come to a threshold where things get really fuzzy and we have to really on another kind of organized knowledge like mathematical modelling.

An example?.The observer effect and how light can be both a wave and a particle at the same time is the reason for why we got the wave/state function to address the wave-particle duality.From then on the question that’s asked is not “How can we make science explain everything?” but “How can we can make our science continue to research on?” when we encounter a seeming threshold?.

Makes me think about (to quote tvtropes) that “The Order of the Stick [a web-comic] had a gag that any sufficiently advanced and reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology.” and how we got alchemy to become chemistry.What happens/is left after after all the previous magic we thought was around is defined and harnessed by science?.

Also as far as how this effects religion…I don’t think that religious mysticism and more spiritually esoteric things like having visions from God have anything to fret in terms of being negated by this . I mean when it

*I wanna shoehorn

-something about heavily subjective interpretation of data because measuring high noise systems with far to many variables for the assumptions to go untested, leaving theories shaky when working under the imperative of evidence-based proof distilled from a replicable method ain’t really doing it for ya

-developing some method to verify models and use that verification process to develop accurate models and how the ultimate test of validity is application via engineering

-Newton’s flaming sword.

-will the meaning of skepticism, heurestics and epistemology on the whole getting a “hit in a soft spot” and being in need of heavy modifications to accommodate for magic ?

.but don’t know how to shoehorn these things in*

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think it’s important to realize/factor in how one of the reasons that the whole “everything can be explained rationally (by a method like science)” motto (made by the philosophical attitude created by ~200 yr old Positivism?) got the boot is b/c there comes a point when the gauging instruments by science and our own (the brain) come to a threshold where things get really fuzzy and we have to really on another kind of organized knowledge like mathematical modelling.

An example?.The observer effect and how light can be both a wave and a particle at the same time is the reason for why we got the wave/state function to address the wave-particle duality.From then on the question that’s asked is not “How can we make science explain everything?” but “How can we can make our science continue to research on?” when we encounter a seeming threshold?.

Glad to see you don’t think this is such a big threat to the faith too. From my experience, there are still many on these boards who’d like to bat around the Devil’s influence behind every unexplainable force.

I like how you explained my thoughts, seriously. As to the limits of science, you’ve pretty understood how I reached my questions too. Indeed, how can we keep researching? Will it be centuries or decades before we discover a possible explanation for certain abilities? How would we apply such knowledge?

Wonder is certainly a better response than fear.

 

[mikekle]

Ive always believed REAL magic was something most people knew about in ancient times, but over the years, it somehow was lost to the ages, and most people today dont even recognize they have these abilities, and only have to re-learn how to activate them.

The fallen angels were the ones who actually taught man how to do these things, I saw a list of the fallen angels and the particular knowledge they were specialized in and taught, I recall, magic, astronomy, root-cutting (pharmacology), beautification of the skin and eyes (make-up), alchemy, etc. so at some point, humans did KNOW how to do such things, and for some reason, it was lost…it would be amazing if someone was able to reactivate it though!!

Just imagine if 80% of the population suddenly had the ability to do all kinds of REAL magic! Id bet our world would get better overnight!