Do you believe in Fate/Destiny?

[Proin Drakenzol]

Reminds me of, what was it, Clarke's Law?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

That maybe right, but I prefer to use instead the phrase 'Any technology that is sufficiently alien from our own is indistinguishable from magic.'

While also true, that is less accurate. After all, to most people computers are nothing more than a "magic box," although they won't admit it.

[darkjedi]

Then we have problem in defining what exactly is ' sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic' by human standards. Basically, every technology that we are aware of, that seem too advanced for us to attain, already has (must have) theoretical frameworks attached to them. Think about time travel, faster-than-light propulsion, virtual world; currently none of them are achievable through human means, and perhaps will never be achievable, and yet if we do observe the phenomenon, we will know it is not magic, because we know the theory involved in it. Then, the only way we can deduce that something is magic is if we do not know the 'theory'; but then, without the theory, we will not be able to perceive that it is too advanced, because it is not technology. (because it has no theory) Then we can conclude that the phenomenon is simply alien; it is simply not comprehensible through human means, and thus magical.

Take for example this situation. An intelligent life form has developed somewhere else whose technology was developed largely based on theoretical frameworks involving biochemical reactions. Due to those biochemical reactions, these organisms were able to attain extra-sensory perceptions, superhuman strength, telekinetic abilities, and immortality. Because of their unique 'supernatural' abilities, they never saw the need to develop an alternative technological path whose theoretical framework involved not just biochemistry but also, say, electromagnetism, like our own. After all, why would they need telephones and radio, when they can just broadcast their thoughts through their ESP? Why would they need electricity and machines when they are superhuman? Why would they develop medicines when they are already immortal? To these beings, some of our technology might seem magic, because they do not have the theory by which they can classify our technology as a technology. However, they might also think it's primitive, rather than advanced, because their own technology works better than our 'magic'.

From our perspective, however, we know their 'supernatural' abilities are in fact not supernatural; we know that some type of biochemistry enabled them to attain those abilities, because we already have the theoretical framework for technology based on biochemistry. We will know that their abilities are real. However, even though we know what exactly they are, and how exactly they are scientifically achievable, we might still consider their biochemical technology to be vastly advanced than ours, because their technology manipulates energy and information better than ours do. However, their technology is not magic.

So, in this situation, our technology was considered as 'magic' by the aliens because our technology was incomprehensible to them, even though it was still considered as inferior to theirs. Conversely, our understanding of the theoretical framework involved in the development of the alien's biochemical technology enabled us to recognize the alien technology as 'technology', and not magic, despite the fact that, by our standards, their technology is inhumanly advanced.

Then the 'paradox' here is that the alien's technology was not sufficiently advanced, while ours were, even though in truth, their technology is more advanced than ours is.


Imagine watching a movie and seeing a man in it suddenly start flying like Jesus once did, with no apparent propulsion devices in sight. Now of course, our common sense will scream at us that it's simply special effects, right? But what if the actor was actually flying during film? We'd know the actor was flying for real (denoting real usage of magic) if we weren't aware of the CGI technology. But since we know the concept of CGI, we will think that the flying character was digitalized.

But what about the aliens who could actually fly, who don't know anything about CGI? Will they recognize the CGI technology as magic, if the flying man was really CGI? (without being told, of course) They'll simply try to comprehend what they are seeing in that 'movie' in their own terms; the character was actually flying; simply, naturally, flying. No magic at all.

In both cases both parties concluded that the flying man is not a stuff of magic. Despite the fact that CGI technology, which is the manipulation of electromagnetism in micro- or nanoscopic level, was too advanced by the flying aliens' standards, the aliens did not pause even for a moment that the 'flying man' phenomenon was induced by 'magic'. That is why I think 'being alien' is a better basis than 'being advanced'. A very rudimentary technology that require little theoretical framework (like organic gasbags inside the being's body or something) can make a small trick look like a titanic supernatural phenomenon of galactic proportions to the most advanced races, (if the man was really flying, which would mean he had gasbags inside him) while the most advanced technology can still seem ordinary to the most primitive of races who understood absolutely nothing about the theoretical framework involved in the technology. (if the man was CGI, which he really was)

[KoC]

Now you're delving into epistemology. That is to say, how we define what we know. In this case how to define if we know A and we deduce that it is technology. The twist being that A is incorrect but it still is technology, only our reason to believe so was faulty. Or at least that's the vibe I got from reading that. Then again... I'm going on too much coffee and too little sleep so my eyes are wandering all over the place.

But onto few points back. I've always found the phrasing of Clarke's law to be a bit misleading. I think it'd be easier to understand with it's, somewhat, counterpart. Any magic is just technology not yet explained.

[Proin Drakenzol]

Then we have problem in defining what exactly is ' sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic' by human standards. Basically, every technology that we are aware of, that seem too advanced for us to attain, already has (must have) theoretical frameworks attached to them. Think about time travel, faster-than-light propulsion, virtual world; currently none of them are achievable through human means, and perhaps will never be achievable, and yet if we do observe the phenomenon, we will know it is not magic, because we know the theory involved in it. Then, the only way we can deduce that something is magic is if we do not know the 'theory'; but then, without the theory, we will not be able to perceive that it is too advanced, because it is not technology. (because it has no theory) Then we can conclude that the phenomenon is simply alien; it is simply not comprehensible through human means, and thus magical.

Take for example this situation. An intelligent life form has developed somewhere else whose technology was developed largely based on theoretical frameworks involving biochemical reactions. Due to those biochemical reactions, these organisms were able to attain extra-sensory perceptions, superhuman strength, telekinetic abilities, and immortality. Because of their unique 'supernatural' abilities, they never saw the need to develop an alternative technological path whose theoretical framework involved not just biochemistry but also, say, electromagnetism, like our own. After all, why would they need telephones and radio, when they can just broadcast their thoughts through their ESP? Why would they need electricity and machines when they are superhuman? Why would they develop medicines when they are already immortal? To these beings, some of our technology might seem magic, because they do not have the theory by which they can classify our technology as a technology. However, they might also think it's primitive, rather than advanced, because their own technology works better than our 'magic'.

From our perspective, however, we know their 'supernatural' abilities are in fact not supernatural; we know that some type of biochemistry enabled them to attain those abilities, because we already have the theoretical framework for technology based on biochemistry. We will know that their abilities are real. However, even though we know what exactly they are, and how exactly they are scientifically achievable, we might still consider their biochemical technology to be vastly advanced than ours, because their technology manipulates energy and information better than ours do. However, their technology is not magic.

So, in this situation, our technology was considered as 'magic' by the aliens because our technology was incomprehensible to them, even though it was still considered as inferior to theirs. Conversely, our understanding of the theoretical framework involved in the development of the alien's biochemical technology enabled us to recognize the alien technology as 'technology', and not magic, despite the fact that, by our standards, their technology is inhumanly advanced.

Then the 'paradox' here is that the alien's technology was not sufficiently advanced, while ours were, even though in truth, their technology is more advanced than ours is.


Imagine watching a movie and seeing a man in it suddenly start flying like Jesus once did, with no apparent propulsion devices in sight. Now of course, our common sense will scream at us that it's simply special effects, right? But what if the actor was actually flying during film? We'd know the actor was flying for real (denoting real usage of magic) if we weren't aware of the CGI technology. But since we know the concept of CGI, we will think that the flying character was digitalized.

But what about the aliens who could actually fly, who don't know anything about CGI? Will they recognize the CGI technology as magic, if the flying man was really CGI? (without being told, of course) They'll simply try to comprehend what they are seeing in that 'movie' in their own terms; the character was actually flying; simply, naturally, flying. No magic at all.

In both cases both parties concluded that the flying man is not a stuff of magic. Despite the fact that CGI technology, which is the manipulation of electromagnetism in micro- or nanoscopic level, was too advanced by the flying aliens' standards, the aliens did not pause even for a moment that the 'flying man' phenomenon was induced by 'magic'. That is why I think 'being alien' is a better basis than 'being advanced'. A very rudimentary technology that require little theoretical framework (like organic gasbags inside the being's body or something) can make a small trick look like a titanic supernatural phenomenon of galactic proportions to the most advanced races, (if the man was really flying, which would mean he had gasbags inside him) while the most advanced technology can still seem ordinary to the most primitive of races who understood absolutely nothing about the theoretical framework involved in the technology. (if the man was CGI, which he really was)

Way to miss the point.


Some people may understand the theory behind more complicated phenomena. But most people won't. Take your average liberal arts major, for example. They can use a computer, but its inner workings are a mystery to them. They know what the term "laser" refers to, but I doubt they know what the acronym means or how to create one.

Everyone knows how to use a cellphone... but how many people, when asked what they want if stranded on a deserted island will say "a cellphone so I can call for help"?


Knowledge of a things' existence does not equate to understanding. And saying "oh, it's technology" really is no different from saying "oh, it's magic."

Face a modern person with what could be considered "real" magic (e.g. fantasy magic, such as flight and fireballs) and they will ASSUME it is technology because, to most people, TECHNOLOGY IS JUST MODERN MAGIC.


Thus the inverse of Clarke's law is true: "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."



Don't believe me? Watch an anime or a movie that has an emphasis on computers. With a few exceptions (such as Wargames) computers are treated as magic boxes that people, even the computer-science PhD guy, can barely comprehend and are capable of things that really can only be described as magic. Because, to the average audience, anything a computer does may as well be magic to begin with.

[iindigo]

Don't believe me? Watch an anime or a movie that has an emphasis on computers. With a few exceptions (such as Wargames) computers are treated as magic boxes that people, even the computer-science PhD guy, can barely comprehend and are capable of things that really can only be described as magic. Because, to the average audience, anything a computer does may as well be magic to begin with.

Those movies make me punch holes in things. Continent-sized holes.

[darkjedi]

Way to miss the point.


Some people may understand the theory behind more complicated phenomena. But most people won't. Take your average liberal arts major, for example. They can use a computer, but its inner workings are a mystery to them. They know what the term "laser" refers to, but I doubt they know what the acronym means or how to create one.

Everyone knows how to use a cellphone... but how many people, when asked what they want if stranded on a deserted island will say "a cellphone so I can call for help"?

Hey, what I'm saying is that, collectively, if humans are unable to comprehend the nature of a particular technology or observed phenomena humanely, they'll naturally consider it as magic. If the millions of scientists currently living on Earth observed a Gundam-esque Dyson's Sphere some 1000 light years away and didn't have the theoretical background for it, they'll see it as an illusion or magic. But of course they do have the background for it, so Dyson's Sphere is not magic to them; it's technology. You should not give the average Joe or some doctor of liberal arts the honor of speaking for the entire humanity whether a technology is magic or not; Look here, because the inventors of the modern technology declared that the things they invented are not magic, (of course they aren't, how else could they be produced?) none of us sane will think they are magic. We can clearly distinguish magic from computers because, collectively, not individually, we know what computers are.

Our difference is that you are concerned with the understanding of technology at an individual level; an 80-year old farmer who had lived all his life somewhere in Africa will think a random rocket that fell on his farmland (courtesy of NASA or something) is something of magic, and that's true. To him, it's magic.

But I'm looking at the issue from the point of view of the whole humanity, like alien technology vs. humanity. The reason why I chose that POV is because I think the only beings who can produce a technology advanced enough that we can't understand it are aliens; nothing that we ourselves produce will be too advanced for the humanity to consider it magic.
Therefore, only alien technology can be considered as magic by us. Human technology will always be technology, because we made them; we can't make them unless we understood them.

Knowledge of a things' existence does not equate to understanding. And saying "oh, it's technology" really is no different from saying "oh, it's magic."

We don't know whether a Dyson's Sphere or a spaceship that can travel faster than light exist. We don't know of their existence. But if we saw them, we will know that they are technology, because we understood them. Theoretical framework is impossible unless you understand what you are dealing with. Only alien technology will be beyond our scope of comprehension, because only alien technology can be advanced enough, or obscure enough that we don't have a theoretical framework for it. That is why I think 'being alien' is more accurate than 'being advanced'.

I'm just eliminating the absurd notion that humanity's own technology can be considered as magic by humanity itself.  

Face a modern person with what could be considered "real" magic (e.g. fantasy magic, such as flight and fireballs) and they will ASSUME it is technology because, to most people, TECHNOLOGY IS JUST MODERN MAGIC.

No... They'll assume it's technology because other humans told them that it's not magic. Collective opinion is what matters to me here.

Thus the inverse of Clarke's law is true: "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

Indeed. Take for example gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear force; God's finest technological arsenal. His magic are simply too advanced that we gave up trying to distinguish them from technology altogether. I'm sure whatever anti-gravity technology the aliens produced will be considered as technology too, if we observed them... because it's so advanced...

Don't believe me? Watch an anime or a movie that has an emphasis on computers. With a few exceptions (such as Wargames) computers are treated as magic boxes that people, even the computer-science PhD guy, can barely comprehend and are capable of things that really can only be described as magic. Because, to the average audience, anything a computer does may as well be magic to begin with.

It's not magic! It's a stuff of science! Computer was made by us because we knew what it was, because we understood how it could be made and how it could work; how can something so easy to understand (if we just tried hard enough to understand it) considered magic?

[KoC]

And again it appears as you've completely missed the whole point of Clarke's law.

[darkjedi]

I couldn't have missed it. I didn't say it's wrong. I just added 'alien' alongside 'advanced'...



I know their point; sufficiently advanced technology will 'naturally' look like magic to us. I'm only saying that only 'alien' technology can be 'sufficiently advanced' that we'll immediately consider it as illusion or magic.




Reiteration:

Any technology, advanced or no, will naturally look like magic to us if it's sufficiently unfamiliar.

Take gravity vs. reverse-gravity. Most of us will say gravity is natural, while reverse-gravity is not. The primary reason why they'll say that is because while we are familiar with gravity, reverse-gravity is sufficiently alien to us; none, absolutely none, of us ever saw a reverse-gravity in action, wherein high-mass objects repel other objects instead of attract them. If aliens ever developed that technology, and we didn't know that an alien race developed them, we'll naturally see them as magic, because we have never encountered it before. 'Sufficiently advanced' can apply. But 'sufficiently alien' may apply too.

[Proin Drakenzol]

Way to miss the point.


Some people may understand the theory behind more complicated phenomena. But most people won't. Take your average liberal arts major, for example. They can use a computer, but its inner workings are a mystery to them. They know what the term "laser" refers to, but I doubt they know what the acronym means or how to create one.

Everyone knows how to use a cellphone... but how many people, when asked what they want if stranded on a deserted island will say "a cellphone so I can call for help"?

Hey, what I'm saying is that, collectively, if humans are unable to comprehend the nature of a particular technology or observed phenomena humanely, they'll naturally consider it as magic. If the millions of scientists currently living on Earth observed a Gundam-esque Dyson's Sphere some 1000 light years away and didn't have the theoretical background for it, they'll see it as an illusion or magic. But of course they do have the background for it, so Dyson's Sphere is not magic to them; it's technology. You should not give the average Joe or some doctor of liberal arts the honor of speaking for the entire humanity whether a technology is magic or not; Look here, because the inventors of the modern technology declared that the things they invented are not magic, (of course they aren't, how else could they be produced?) none of us sane will think they are magic. We can clearly distinguish magic from computers because, collectively, not individually, we know what computers are.

Our difference is that you are concerned with the understanding of technology at an individual level; an 80-year old farmer who had lived all his life somewhere in Africa will think a random rocket that fell on his farmland (courtesy of NASA or something) is something of magic, and that's true. To him, it's magic.

But I'm looking at the issue from the point of view of the whole humanity, like alien technology vs. humanity. The reason why I chose that POV is because I think the only beings who can produce a technology advanced enough that we can't understand it are aliens; nothing that we ourselves produce will be too advanced for the humanity to consider it magic.
Therefore, only alien technology can be considered as magic by us. Human technology will always be technology, because we made them; we can't make them unless we understood them.

Knowledge of a things' existence does not equate to understanding. And saying "oh, it's technology" really is no different from saying "oh, it's magic."

We don't know whether a Dyson's Sphere or a spaceship that can travel faster than light exist. We don't know of their existence. But if we saw them, we will know that they are technology, because we understood them. Theoretical framework is impossible unless you understand what you are dealing with. Only alien technology will be beyond our scope of comprehension, because only alien technology can be advanced enough, or obscure enough that we don't have a theoretical framework for it. That is why I think 'being alien' is more accurate than 'being advanced'.

I'm just eliminating the absurd notion that humanity's own technology can be considered as magic by humanity itself.  

Face a modern person with what could be considered "real" magic (e.g. fantasy magic, such as flight and fireballs) and they will ASSUME it is technology because, to most people, TECHNOLOGY IS JUST MODERN MAGIC.

No... They'll assume it's technology because other humans told them that it's not magic. Collective opinion is what matters to me here.

You fail at life and should probably kill yourself.

The collective means nothing! It's all about the individual's understanding.

Taking the highest portion of people and saying "because they understand, we all understand" is being an intellectual communist.

Look up the term "arcane." Those educated in science are the shamans and mystics of today. As you would not say the ancient mystic's understanding could be generalized to the populous nor should you with the scientists of today.

Thus the inverse of Clarke's law is true: "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

Indeed. Take for example gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear force; God's finest technological arsenal. His magic are simply too advanced that we gave up trying to distinguish them from technology altogether. I'm sure whatever anti-gravity technology the aliens produced will be considered as technology too, if we observed them... because it's so advanced...

Natural phenomena are neither technological nor magical. They are natural phenomena.

So once again, you fail at life. Find a bridge. Make yourself not be on it in a vertical movement fashion.

Don't believe me? Watch an anime or a movie that has an emphasis on computers. With a few exceptions (such as Wargames) computers are treated as magic boxes that people, even the computer-science PhD guy, can barely comprehend and are capable of things that really can only be described as magic. Because, to the average audience, anything a computer does may as well be magic to begin with.

It's not magic! It's a stuff of science! Computer was made by us because we knew what it was, because we understood how it could be made and how it could work; how can something so easy to understand (if we just tried hard enough to understand it) considered magic?

First of all, learn how to write a sentence.

Second of all, NOT EVERYONE FUCKING UNDERSTANDS COMPUTERS, THAT'S THE GODDAMN POINT. Fuck...

Hey, I have a fucking idea. Go get some reading comprehension and then come back to me you worthless piece of shit.

I couldn't have missed it. I didn't say it's wrong. I just added 'alien' alongside 'advanced'...



I know their point; sufficiently advanced technology will 'naturally' look like magic to us. I'm only saying that only 'alien' technology can be 'sufficiently advanced' that we'll immediately consider it as illusion or magic.




Reiteration:

Any technology, advanced or no, will naturally look like magic to us if it's sufficiently unfamiliar.

Take gravity vs. reverse-gravity. Most of us will say gravity is natural, while reverse-gravity is not. The primary reason why they'll say that is because while we are familiar with gravity, reverse-gravity is sufficiently alien to us; none, absolutely none, of us ever saw a reverse-gravity in action, wherein high-mass objects repel other objects instead of attract them. If aliens ever developed that technology, and we didn't know that an alien race developed them, we'll naturally see them as magic, because we have never encountered it before. 'Sufficiently advanced' can apply. But 'sufficiently alien' may apply too.

...Again, you've proved my point. "Sufficiently alien" has nothing to do with anything when the familiar is still arcane! You're missing the forest for all the trees, as they say.


In conclusion: die a horrible death to expunge the taint of your failure from the Universe.



/SWotF

[Tatsujin]

You guys heard of Tatsujin's law? ...

(click to show/hide)

Watch School Days, it's a religion in anime.

[Proin Drakenzol]

You guys heard of Tatsujin's law? ...

(click to show/hide)

Watch School Days, it's a religion in anime.

No, it's not. It's pretty stupid and needlessly brutal, IMO.

[Tatsujin]

You guys heard of Tatsujin's law? ...

(click to show/hide)

Watch School Days, it's a religion in anime.

No, it's not. It's pretty stupid and needlessly brutal, IMO.

Very good, then cool off. Stay on topic.

[KoC]

You guys heard of Tatsujin's law? ...

(click to show/hide)

Watch School Days, it's a religion in anime.

No, it's not. It's pretty stupid and needlessly brutal, IMO.

Very good, then cool off. Stay on topic.

Says the little person first trying to delve into matters of offtopic.

[darkjedi]

You fail at life and should probably kill yourself.

The collective means nothing! It's all about the individual's understanding.

I don't think you should kill yourself but there's no absolute reason to say that it's all about individual's understanding and nothing about collective understanding... C'mon, it's all about preference. I chose to define Clarke's Law using collective understanding because that's what I want; It's hard to use This Law That Law Clarke's Law in a random individual's mundane daily life, you see... Since we are looking at Clarke's Law from different point of views we'll naturally have different opinions... But you can't say I should kill myself just for having a different opinion. Of course I could define Clarke's Law from your POV, and come to a different but nonetheless logical conclusion, but I chose not to, because my preference is different...

Taking the highest portion of people and saying "because they understand, we all understand" is being an intellectual communist.

What 'highest portion' of people... In my categorization I place firefighters, soldiers, nurses and teachers at the highest portion. Each of them have different understanding of different things; firefighters will know better than a soldier about fighting fire; Soldiers will be more proficient than others on using a weapon; nurses cater to the sick; and teachers can teach normal people to become firefighters, soldiers, nurses, etc... Of course there can be individual differences. I merely combined the knowledge of all these people; If you combine the knowledge of firefighters, soldiers, nurses, teachers, (who are irrelevant anyway when discussing Clarke's law) and that of other sorts of people like scientists and engineers basically humanity know everything, relatively speaking. A technology that none of these people can comprehend is what I will call 'alien', and thus magical to everyone.

Hey, I'm sorry I went a bit off-topic there. I just couldn't find anything else to say.   It seems like you misunderstood my 'intellectual communism'.

Look up the term "arcane." Those educated in science are the shamans and mystics of today. As you would not say the ancient mystic's understanding could be generalized to the populous nor should you with the scientists of today.

Ah, damn... so rocket science is indeed magic to me, because I know nothing about it...

I think you are assuming too much of a human being's inability to distinguish technology from magic. There are plenty of people who understand little of newton's law of motion who'll scoff at the fact that rockets can be considered magic. Why? Because there are others who can assure them that rocket is not magic, that it's technology. Only when no credible people can assure them that a technology is technology will people be unable to recognize technology as technology; and apparently, most of these 'credible' people tend to be scientists in one way or another. The role scientists play in making people believe in technology is so big that I chose not to alienate them from humanity.

Natural phenomena are neither technological nor magical. They are natural phenomena.

Maybe it's not really natural phenomena, but you just think it's natural phenomena... Have you considered the fact that our lives could merely be simulations performed by a vastly advanced extraterrestrial civilization, like 'God' beings? That gravity and electromagnetism are empirical representation of calculations performed in bits and bytes, and what we see in our daily lives are merely super-advanced imagery technology? (a lot of matrix stuff here, but I assure you, I'm not stupid enough to believe everything that comes out of shitty media) What explicit proof do you have that gravity and electromagnetism are indeed natural phenomenon? Maybe they are just technology that we were led to believe are natural because we've lived for so long under their influence.

I'm not rubbing it as the truth; It's just a possibility, a possibility which we have little chance of verifying now or in the foreseeable future, because it's beyond our comprehension...

Second of all, NOT EVERYONE FUCKING UNDERSTANDS COMPUTERS, THAT'S THE GODDAMN POINT. Fuck...

Eh? Of course I know not everyone understand computers... and they could feel magical to them... but is it really because they are really advanced, or because it's simply alien to them?

What 'being advanced' really means is that more advanced technology tend to be harder to comprehend, and therefore feel more unnatural. The technology behind making a spoon is simpler so we might not feel that a spoon is made of magic... But some of us will consider TV's as magic because we don't really understand the technology behind it.

"Sufficiently alien" has nothing to do with anything

Explain a little bit more. 'Sufficiently alien' is same with 'sufficiently advanced' in that in both cases the observer of the technology is led to believe that it's not technological, but either supernatural or illusory.





And exercise some quote pruning, lol, if you will... (not a mockery, it's a request)

[Proin Drakenzol]

You fail at life and should probably kill yourself.

The collective means nothing! It's all about the individual's understanding.

I don't think you should kill yourself but there's no absolute reason to say that it's all about individual's understanding and nothing about collective understanding... C'mon, it's all about preference. I chose to define Clarke's Law using collective understanding because that's what I want; It's hard to use This Law That Law Clarke's Law in a random individual's mundane daily life, you see... Since we are looking at Clarke's Law from different point of views we'll naturally have different opinions... But you can't say I should kill myself just for having a different opinion. Of course I could define Clarke's Law from your POV, and come to a different but nonetheless logical conclusion, but I chose not to, because my preference is different...

And my preference is not to have you protected under the law so I could rid the world of you.

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

Clarke's Third Law is, in fact, applicable to individuals. If you say that because person 'A' knows something, person 'B,' who has received no education on the matter, must also know something because "it's a given" that person 'A' tells person 'B'...

Well, let's apply your logic to a different situation.

The sky is blue. A sighted person knows this is true. Would you then assume a blind man knows this as well? What if the sighted people all told him it was green? Even if they told him it was blue, would he know? Could he ever truly understand what "blue" is? No, he is lacking the ability to understand.

So great, people are told computers are technology from sources that are "reliable." That doesn't mean that they can do anything but parrot the word "technology" back. They still view it the same way someone would view magic. To them it is magic, irregardless of what they say they "know it is.

Taking the highest portion of people and saying "because they understand, we all understand" is being an intellectual communist.

What 'highest portion' of people... In my categorization I place firefighters, soldiers, nurses and teachers at the highest portion. Each of them have different understanding of different things; firefighters will know better than a soldier about fighting fire; Soldiers will be more proficient than others on using a weapon; nurses cater to the sick; and teachers can teach normal people to become firefighters, soldiers, nurses, etc... Of course there can be individual differences. I merely combined the knowledge of all these people; If you combine the knowledge of firefighters, soldiers, nurses, teachers, (who are irrelevant anyway when discussing Clarke's law) and that of other sorts of people like scientists and engineers basically humanity know everything, relatively speaking. A technology that none of these people can comprehend is what I will call 'alien', and thus magical to everyone.

This is because you are demonstrably stupid. Soldiers are some of the most retarded people I've met. Them and Marines. Most airmen aren't too bright either. Most sailors are fairly retarded, especially those in nontechnical ratings (I know, I am a sailor in a technical rating).

And soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are going to know how to fight fires about as well as a fireman would.

Hey, I'm sorry I went a bit off-topic there. I just couldn't find anything else to say.   It seems like you misunderstood my 'intellectual communism'.

Or you're:

• Too stupid to say what you mean. Or
• I'm right and you're too stupid to understand what you mean.

I'm leaning towards #2, myself.

Look up the term "arcane." Those educated in science are the shamans and mystics of today. As you would not say the ancient mystic's understanding could be generalized to the populous nor should you with the scientists of today.

Ah, damn... so rocket science is indeed magic to me, because I know nothing about it...

QED. The mere fact that you brought up rocket science (which is a actually relatively simple) proves my fucking point.

I think you are assuming too much of a human being's inability to distinguish technology from magic. There are plenty of people who understand little of newton's law of motion who'll scoff at the fact that rockets can be considered magic. Why? Because there are others who can assure them that rocket is not magic, that it's technology. Only when no credible people can assure them that a technology is technology will people be unable to recognize technology as technology; and apparently, most of these 'credible' people tend to be scientists in one way or another. The role scientists play in making people believe in technology is so big that I chose not to alienate them from humanity.

Again, who cares? So if I'm really able to use fantasy magic and I tell everyone it's technology and they believe me... is it suddenly technology? Or is it still fantasy magic? Or do we realize that it doesn't matter because to anyone that doesn't understand it's all just magic anyway?

Natural phenomena are neither technological nor magical. They are natural phenomena.

Maybe it's not really natural phenomena, but you just think it's natural phenomena... Have you considered the fact that our lives could merely be simulations performed by a vastly advanced extraterrestrial civilization, like 'God' beings? That gravity and electromagnetism are empirical representation of calculations performed in bits and bytes, and what we see in our daily lives are merely super-advanced imagery technology? (a lot of matrix stuff here, but I assure you, I'm not stupid enough to believe everything that comes out of shitty media) What explicit proof do you have that gravity and electromagnetism are indeed natural phenomenon? Maybe they are just technology that we were led to believe are natural because we've lived for so long under their influence.

I'm not rubbing it as the truth; It's just a possibility, a possibility which we have little chance of verifying now or in the foreseeable future, because it's beyond our comprehension...

I don't know... but this is always what you must ask yourself whenever this (or any similar "X isn't real but we have know way to know, so then what?" question comes up):

"Is it really worth taking the risk that it isn't real? After all, if it's not and I act as if it is I lose nothing... but if I act as if it is not but it is then I have lost everything."

Second of all, NOT EVERYONE FUCKING UNDERSTANDS COMPUTERS, THAT'S THE GODDAMN POINT. Fuck...

Eh? Of course I know not everyone understand computers... and they could feel magical to them... but is it really because they are really advanced, or because it's simply alien to them?

Because they are advanced. They are not alien. People use them every fucking day. They are advanced. Anyone can tell you how a mortar and pestle works (provided they are presented with one so that they know what it is), it's a simple bit of technology that is alien to most people. The computer is an advanced piece of technology that is commonplace to most people.

What 'being advanced' really means is that more advanced technology tend to be harder to comprehend, and therefore feel more unnatural. The technology behind making a spoon is simpler so we might not feel that a spoon is made of magic... But some of us will consider TV's as magic because we don't really understand the technology behind it.

QED, much?

"Sufficiently alien" has nothing to do with anything

Explain a little bit more. 'Sufficiently alien' is same with 'sufficiently advanced' in that in both cases the observer of the technology is led to believe that it's not technological, but either supernatural or illusory.

No, sufficiently alien means removed from everyday experience. The mortar and pestle, the hand loom, crank-shaft... all deprecated, effectively alien pieces of technology that are so simple that the "average Joe" could figure them out.


Computers, the internal combustion engine, space shuttles... these are all things that are commonplace but poorly or mis-understood by the general populace. Therefore magic, but not alien.

And exercise some quote pruning, lol, if you will... (not a mockery, it's a request)

No, go fuck yourself. I like to see your idiocy spread across these boards for all to see.



/edited for reasons of: it's 2 in the morning.



[EDIT]

You guys heard of Tatsujin's law? ...

(click to show/hide)

Watch School Days, it's a religion in anime.

No, it's not. It's pretty stupid and needlessly brutal, IMO.

Very good, then cool off. Stay on topic.

Hey, Tatsujin, I've wanted to say this for a while (because you're retarded): go take a hot poker and shove it up your ass.
[/list]

[darkjedi]

Your opinion:

1) Sufficiently advanced  ----> perceived as 'magic'

and

    Anything else can go fuck itself


My opinion:

1) Sufficiently advanced ---> will look sufficiently alien ---> perceived as 'magic'

or

2) Sufficiently alien ---> perceived as 'magic'


Semantics troubles me.

Clarke's Third Law is, in fact, applicable to individuals. If you say that because person 'A' knows something, person 'B,' who has received no education on the matter, must also know something because "it's a given" that person 'A' tells person 'B'...

I didn't say it couldn't... I'm only saying it could also apply on a collective level, not just on individual level, and that's (the collective level) what I chose to define Clarke's Law with, because I want to. Mutilating a theory and putting it back together and seeing people's reaction to it can help pass time, you know...

Well, let's apply your logic to a different situation.

The sky is blue. A sighted person knows this is true. Would you then assume a blind man knows this as well? What if the sighted people all told him it was green? Even if they told him it was blue, would he know? Could he ever truly understand what "blue" is? No, he is lacking the ability to understand.

So great, people are told computers are technology from sources that are "reliable." That doesn't mean that they can do anything but parrot the word "technology" back. They still view it the same way someone would view magic. To them it is magic, irregardless of what they say they "know it is.

Looks like this could lead to a debate of nihilism... I'm inclined to save it for some other time.

And soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are going to know how to fight fires about as well as a fireman would.

Did you read:

Of course there can be individual differences.

?

So if I'm really able to use fantasy magic and I tell everyone it's technology and they believe me... is it suddenly technology? Or is it still fantasy magic? Or do we realize that it doesn't matter because to anyone that doesn't understand it's all just magic anyway?

At individual levels they can be considered magic. But just because some billion people on Earth won't know how the hell an atomic bomb works doesn't mean atomic bomb will always be perceived as magic to a normal human being; because the reason why these billion people look at nuclear weapons as they would a magical weapon of mass destruction is not that because the technology is too hard to understand, but rather because the individuals were led to alienate those technology... like not having the chance to learn, or refusing to learn, or told to refuse to learn, how nuclear weapons work. I'm saying, 'being advanced' is only one of the reasons why a technology will feel 'alien'; there are other ways for a particular technology to feel alien, be it cultural or anything. How advanced a technology is simply one of them. Even an insufficiently advanced technology (a technology that is not advanced enough to fool a normal human being) will look like magic if it looks too absurd or surreal, under the right circumstances, to different people.


Example:

I don't much understand rocket technology. All I know is that rockets exhaust fuels through their backsides to propel forward, applying one of Newton's law of motion. I do know that it's not magic, however, because I know that I will no longer perceive it as magical, and perceive it as technology once I choose to learn more about rocket technology.

Some others might indeed choose to ignore all this 'rocket science' stuff and call it a fantasy; like people who lived in the mountains   who saw rockets flying for the first time...

However, does that mean that rocket technology is sufficiently advanced, because it was able to fool some people? Maybe no, because there are still people who will be able to distinguish them from really supernatural stuffs...

[Proin Drakenzol]

Your opinion:

1) Sufficiently advanced  ----> perceived as 'magic'

and

    Anything else can go fuck itself


My opinion:

1) Sufficiently advanced ---> will look sufficiently alien ---> perceived as 'magic'

or

2) Sufficiently alien ---> perceived as 'magic'


Semantics troubles me.

I will attempt to be as concise as possible since you are a simpleton.


Something that is "advanced" is not always "alien."

Something that is "alien" is not always "advanced."

Therefore something can be both "simple" and "alien," easily understood as technology even by people that haven't seen it before in their lives and are seeing it for the first time.

Therefore something can be both "advanced" and "commonplace," essentially magic even for those used to its presence.

Therefore... You. Are. Wrong.

[darkjedi]

I edited my previous post.

Something that is "advanced" is not always "alien."

Something that is "alien" is not always "advanced."

Your point is?

My point: No technology is sufficiently advanced if it doesn't look 'alien' enough to be naturally perceived as magic.

My point has a conclusion already, but yours doesn't; unless you mean the fact that you think I am wrong.

Therefore something can be both "simple" and "alien," easily understood as technology

Something like aspirin, maybe... I'm sure everyone who saw one will understand it as technology, because it's simple.

Therefore something can be both "advanced" and "commonplace," essentially magic even for those used to its presence.

Like gravity, yes...

[Proin Drakenzol]

I edited my previous post.

Something that is "advanced" is not always "alien."

Something that is "alien" is not always "advanced."

Your point is?

My point: No technology is sufficiently advanced if it doesn't look 'alien' enough to be naturally perceived as magic.

Therefore something can be both "simple" and "alien," easily understood as technology

Something like aspirin, maybe... I'm sure everyone who saw one will understand it as technology, because it's simple.

Therefore something can be both "advanced" and "commonplace," essentially magic even for those used to its presence.

Like gravity, yes...

And you are still wrong because something does not have to look alien to be sufficiently advanced and something that looks alien is not always sufficiently advanced.

[darkjedi]

And you are still wrong because something does not have to look alien to be sufficiently advanced

You must be wrong, because if you are not, there can be no technology that will be indistinguishable from magic...

and something that looks alien is not always sufficiently advanced.

That's my point. Rocket technology can look like magic under the right circumstances even if it's insufficiently advanced, because it can be made to look alien.





Conclusion: (again)

Any technology, whether sufficiently or insufficiently advanced, will be observed as magic if it's alien to the observer.



Btw, by alien I don't mean ET's, (lol!) I mean 'grossly unfamiliar' or something along that line.