Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cochramd]

I know it is a common line of thinking, it simply happens not to work intellectually speaking. 

People who make spelling errors in spite of spellchecking technology don't get to decide what works intellectually.

The rest of what you said is bullshit because settings where people understand magic to a scientific degree are a dime a dozen. For instance, in every official D&D setting there are wizards who understand magic the same way a chemist understands chemistry. Wizards can cast spells not because they are inherently magical in any way, but because they have studied magic so thoroughly that they understand exactly what they need to do to make magic happen on demand. In Eberron, magic is so well understood that it has been industrialized. Whether or not a phenomena in a fictional setting can be explained by the rules of that universe is irrelevant as to whether or not it's magic; that is determined whether or not it can be explained by the natural laws of our own universe and if the author said it was magic or superscience. Actually, I take that back. It relies entirely on whether or not the author says it's magic. A phenomena that is entirely explainable by science in our own universe could be magic in a fictional setting just because the author said so. Furthermore, while magic is by definition not mundane, that does not mean it must be uncommon in a fictional setting. I could write a setting where everyone could turn lead into gold just by wiggling their fingers at it, and how they were able to do this was completely understood. If I said it was magic, then you could argue otherwise until the heat death of the universe and still be wrong.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

This makes my brain hurt.

Okay, the initial argument was "everything in the cavern is magically sustained by your suggestion, and some worlds in the future of DF won't have magic, so by your logic everything in the cavern won't be in that world." They were saying that some things should have a nonmagical explanation, and that they can in fact have such an explanation.

Sounds good? (For once! I kind of agree with GoblinCookie, so he can tell I don't have a grudge over the treesplosion thread.)

So I actually disagree with your side of the argument, cochramd, even though you seemed reasonable at first sight. And that's because you are! Your statements make sense, but they are applied to an argument that got weird. You're saying "it's fine for everything to be explained through magic." Which it sometimes is, but sometimes isn't.

But I ALSO kind of disagree with GoblinCookie, because sometimes a magical explanation for everything is fine. So one might say I agree with the "not always magic" side, but don't like the arguments; I disagree with the "always magic" side, but think they sound cool.

So yeah, my brain hurts.

(I won't even talk about how the spelling error crack seemed to be GOOD when I agreed with cochramd, but now it seems like an awful thing to do. The biased creature inside of me / is rather hard to see / but when I try quite hard / my self-perception is marred.)

[GoblinCookie]

Your definition of magic is flawed. If they can be broken, they aren't the laws of physics.

No, if they cannot be bent or broken then magic does not exist; it is the magic in your universe that is non-existent not the laws of physics in the alternative magical universe.  The consequences of a 100% non-magical world are not very nice, since it means that freedom/power are illusions since given that the mind is outside of the natural world (aka supernatural) any genuine deliberate influence of the mind on material reality (such as our material bodies) is actually magic.  A 100% non-magical universe is basically a deterministic universe governed by mindless causality where our subjective wills can no way alter anything since everything is pre-determined by the iron laws of physics. 

But ultimately there has to a distinction between supernatural and natural in order for concepts like magic to exist.  If what you are calling magic is the basis of the natural world then the super-natural status of your 'magic' goes away and hence it no longer is really magic; you have rules and then you have exceptions, the exceptions are what we call magic.  They are things which should not be possible according to the rules but yet happen; the problem is that eventually the exceptions become the rule.

For instance, if a single wizard conjures up a light in the Underdark then this can be said to be magic since given the rules the Underdark should be dark and the wizard has just made an exception.  If the whole Underdark is lit up on a constant basis by 'magic' then we have now made a rule out of the exception, that is to say the lighting up of the Underdark has now become a fundamental principle of the natural universe. 

I know it is a common line of thinking, it simply happens not to work intellectually speaking. 

People who make spelling errors in spite of spellchecking technology don't get to decide what works intellectually.

The rest of what you said is bullshit because settings where people understand magic to a scientific degree are a dime a dozen. For instance, in every official D&D setting there are wizards who understand magic the same way a chemist understands chemistry. Wizards can cast spells not because they are inherently magical in any way, but because they have studied magic so thoroughly that they understand exactly what they need to do to make magic happen on demand. In Eberron, magic is so well understood that it has been industrialized. Whether or not a phenomena in a fictional setting can be explained by the rules of that universe is irrelevant as to whether or not it's magic; that is determined whether or not it can be explained by the natural laws of our own universe and if the author said it was magic or superscience. Actually, I take that back. It relies entirely on whether or not the author says it's magic. A phenomena that is entirely explainable by science in our own universe could be magic in a fictional setting just because the author said so. Furthermore, while magic is by definition not mundane, that does not mean it must be uncommon in a fictional setting. I could write a setting where everyone could turn lead into gold just by wiggling their fingers at it, and how they were able to do this was completely understood. If I said it was magic, then you could argue otherwise until the heat death of the universe and still be wrong.

Spelling is variable depending upon the country and besides the ability to spell perfectly has more to do with whether you have automatic spellchecking technology installed than anything about the authors intellectual abilities.  Not to mention there might be quite brilliant intellectuals to whom English is not their native language. 

The author can say this is magic but he cannot make it actually magical any more than I can take two creatures in dwarf fortress and by naming both of them 'hat people' make them actually the same creature.  They are actually two different things even though the creator has chosen to call them the same thing. 

This is not to say however that magic cannot follow objective rules, only that these rules cannot be the fundamental basis of the natural material universe. 

It is like we have a computer game with internal scripts and then we have cheat codes to override those scripts.  However if we made the cheat codes the fundamental basis for the game mechanics then they would while continuing to exist and function cease to cheat codes.  In Ebberron's case the Science/Technology question is whether the universe has a fundamental basis that is separate from the powers being used industrially or whether it does not. 

So have the people activated every cheat code under the sun (industrial magic) or are they simply playing the game very well (technology)? 

But I ALSO kind of disagree with GoblinCookie, because sometimes a magical explanation for everything is fine. So one might say I agree with the "not always magic" side, but don't like the arguments; I disagree with the "always magic" side, but think they sound cool.

A lot of it is a series of boxes; we have the bigger box (the natural universe) and then we have smaller boxes (magical things/events).  The smaller boxes have their own internal rules but they cannot grow so big that they become bigger than the large box that contains them.

[cochramd]

*snip*

I actually think that some plants should draw their energy from non-magical sources but that the majority of plants draw their energy from a magical source. The only plausible non-magical source I've yet seen proposed is the heat from magma, and there are relatively few spots in the caverns that would be suitable for plant growth that relies on that heat even when you allow underwater plants to exist. Consequently, a world where only plants that get their energy from non-magical sources exist is going to have scarce cavern life, with possibly no animal life at all. Now, for non-magic worlds, this is fine. In worlds where there are magic, however, I want to see the vibrant life-filled cavern forests we've all come to know and love, and so I think that the majority of plants should get their energy from a magical source. Not to say that I'm not open to other sorts of biomes existing in the caverns, but I'm sure that has more to do with the nutrient and moisture content of soil.

Of course, one thing we all need to remember while discussing potential energy sources is the consequences they will have on farming. Gone will be the days where you could just plunk a farm down on any old underground section of dirt; you'll have to bring your farms to the energy source or the energy source to wherever you want to farm. I have a great fondness for volcano embarks, so plants that rely on the heat of magma and not a magical source get 2 big thumbs up from me.

*snip*

That's a cute little argument, but you're still wrong. If the author says the curtains are blue, then the curtains are blue because the author said so. If the author says the sun is bright pink, then the sun is bright pink because the author said so. If the author says the world is flat, then the world is flat because the author said so. If the author says that gravity is magic, then gravity is magic because the author said so. I know you have problems with accepting "because X said so", but that's just how fiction works.

[expwnent]

In what way is your definition of magic useful? If something plays any causal role whatsoever then it's part of the laws of physics.

*snip*

That's a cute little argument, but you're still wrong. If the author says the curtains are blue, then the curtains are blue because the author said so. If the author says the sun is bright pink, then the sun is bright pink because the author said so. If the author says the world is flat, then the world is flat because the author said so. If the author says that gravity is magic, then gravity is magic because the author said so. I know you have problems with accepting "because X said so", but that's just how fiction works.

I disagree with this too. This is how fiction works.

[cochramd]

I disagree with this too. This is how fiction works.

That's a lot to read, but I think I just got the gist of it from skimming it. I will say this: I'm not saying that having vampires that sparkle wasn't one of the contributing factors to the overwhelming shittiness of the Twilight series. I'm saying that it doesn't matter how much or how well we argue that vampires that sparkle in the sunlight are shit; Edward Cullen will always sparkle in the sunlight because Stephanie Meyer said he does, and there is nothing that we can do to change that barring the use of a time machine.

It's a moot argument of course, since most people seem fine with the idea of a magical energy source sustaining most cavern ecosystems.

[expwnent]

For the premise of the story, yes. But if J. K. Rowling announced tomorrow that Harry Potter was a giant tarantula the whole time that would just be silly (even if she meant it) and it would be perfectly valid to ignore her.

[cochramd]

Personally I'd try to get her to a mental health professional if that happened, but yeah, a poorly executed retcon can undermine an author's authority on their own work.

Getting back to the thread topic, I've come up with a justification for as to why there is a magical energy source in the caverns: recall this little gem. Perhaps the gods thought that if they filled the caverns with dangerous wildlife, no one would ever dig down deep enough to breach hell itself?

[Vattic]

But ultimately there has to a distinction between supernatural and natural in order for concepts like magic to exist.  If what you are calling magic is the basis of the natural world then the super-natural status of your 'magic' goes away and hence it no longer is really magic; you have rules and then you have exceptions, the exceptions are what we call magic.  They are things which should not be possible according to the rules but yet happen; the problem is that eventually the exceptions become the rule.

For instance, if a single wizard conjures up a light in the Underdark then this can be said to be magic since given the rules the Underdark should be dark and the wizard has just made an exception.  If the whole Underdark is lit up on a constant basis by 'magic' then we have now made a rule out of the exception, that is to say the lighting up of the Underdark has now become a fundamental principle of the natural universe. 

If a deity says "let there be light" and there is and it becomes the primary source of energy for all life then it stops being a supernatural event? Magic and miracles in our world being rare to non-existent is a property of our world and our definitions conform to this; In a world where magic is more common they may well have a different definition.

[LMeire]

Isn't the main definition of magic that it can't be explained by science? Just making an energy source immune to entropy (and therefore a dependable food-source for cavern wildlife) should make it magical, as without such a fundamental limitation there'd be no way to measure or understand the energy in the same terms we can light or heat.

[GoblinCookie]

That's a cute little argument, but you're still wrong. If the author says the curtains are blue, then the curtains are blue because the author said so. If the author says the sun is bright pink, then the sun is bright pink because the author said so. If the author says the world is flat, then the world is flat because the author said so. If the author says that gravity is magic, then gravity is magic because the author said so. I know you have problems with accepting "because X said so", but that's just how fiction works.

Problem is that the author did not create the language they are writing in.

If a deity says "let there be light" and there is and it becomes the primary source of energy for all life then it stops being a supernatural event? Magic and miracles in our world being rare to non-existent is a property of our world and our definitions conform to this; In a world where magic is more common they may well have a different definition.

If two worlds definitions of the same thing are not in any way the same then why do they translate as the same?

In what way is your definition of magic useful? If something plays any causal role whatsoever then it's part of the laws of physics.

If a wizard uses a fireball spell to set light to a forest then at what point does this fire becom non-magical and operating purely according to the laws of physics.  This is the whole chain of causation thing, magic is a causation that is no according to the rules of the universe but the effect must at some point be integrated back into the universe.  The forest must at some point start burning according to the rules even though it originally only started burning due to magic.

Isn't the main definition of magic that it can't be explained by science? Just making an energy source immune to entropy (and therefore a dependable food-source for cavern wildlife) should make it magical, as without such a fundamental limitation there'd be no way to measure or understand the energy in the same terms we can light or heat.

Not at all, lots of things in history were/are not explainable by science but they were never magic as a result.  It is not valid to declare something that you do not presently have the means to understand magic simply because you do not understand it.  It was not valid for people to say "the sun burns by magic" during the millenia before people understood nuclear fusion and so it is with the posited magical cavern source.  In a sense for something to be properly considered magical/supernatural/miraculous we must understand the laws of physics well enough to know that said an event could not have happened yet also have evidence that it did.

That effectively means that magic can never be the foundational basis of anything in the natural world.  If something about caverns means that an energy source reliably appears along the lines you described then that *is* part of the laws of physics of that world, whether people are presently able to understand it or not it does not constitute magic; see above point on the sun. 

[expwnent]

Never, because it's always part of physics because in that universe magic is part of the laws of physics. If they can be broken, they're not the laws of physics. There is no such thing as an exception. Either something is a rule that's always true or it isn't and the real rule is more complicated.

[LMeire]

Not at all, lots of things in history were/are not explainable by science but they were never magic as a result.  It is not valid to declare something that you do not presently have the means to understand magic simply because you do not understand it.  It was not valid for people to say "the sun burns by magic" during the millenia before people understood nuclear fusion and so it is with the posited magical cavern source.  In a sense for something to be properly considered magical/supernatural/miraculous we must understand the laws of physics well enough to know that said an event could not have happened yet also have evidence that it did.

That effectively means that magic can never be the foundational basis of anything in the natural world.  If something about caverns means that an energy source reliably appears along the lines you described then that *is* part of the laws of physics of that world, whether people are presently able to understand it or not it does not constitute magic; see above point on the sun. 

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, as we have tons of words for things that never existed so there's no reason to bring up things eventually proven not to be magic when describing magic. That'd be like saying that we have to shrink the definition of a "mermaid" so that it doesn't include anything resembling the Fiji Mermaids or manatees. It's anti-creative to let real-world stuff get in the way of fantasy stuff.

[cochramd]

If two worlds definitions of the same thing are not in any way the same then why do they translate as the same?

Because you are stubbornly clinging to a definition that does not hold in both worlds instead of looking for one that does. It didn't take me long to find one; paraphrasing the wiktionary definitions of magic and supernatural, magic is beyond or added to nature and is typically granted by a deity or some other being or force with powers far beyond that which typical humans are born with. This definition holds true in both worlds with and without magic. There, problem solved. Now can we get back to agriculture already? We've got the energy source figured out, but there is still the matter of nutrients and moisture to discuss for cavern plants.

[LMeire]

Well as long as there's oxygen or a similar corrosive agent involved, chemotrophs could feed off of the rock itself by breaking down the surface they're growing on. Assuming this happens on an open wall/ceiling, that could lead to small piles of waste-soil on the cavern floor around such colonies that could then support additional fungal niches.