Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Christopher R Taylor]

And "extra-scientific" is another one of those meaningless phrases that really means "we don't understand how it works and we can't replicate it."

 

Or, it means "defies the laws of physics and science, bending reality in ways science says is not possible.  Something that breaks the rules.

[Bazza]

Magic: Perception of the external world.

Science:...

 

[Lord Liaden]

Magic: Perception of the external world.

Science:...

 

 

The external world regardless of perception.

[Joe Walsh]

Or, it means "defies the laws of physics and science, bending reality in ways science says is not possible.  Something that breaks the rules.

 

But, that would just mean our understanding of the rules is incorrect or incomplete.

[bigdamnhero]

Or, it means "defies the laws of physics and science, bending reality in ways science says is not possible.  Something that breaks the rules.

 

But, that would just mean our understanding of the rules is incorrect or incomplete.

Exactly. Most of the big scientific ideas - relativity, evolution, quantum mechanics, even things like gravity or heliocentrism - "broke the rules" in their day. Einstein's probably the most obvious example, since just about every thing he postulated contradicted Newtonian physics in one way or another. But most Nobels are awarded to people who break the rules in some way, resulting in a need to update/modify said rules.

 

Again, science isn't a body of knowledge. It's a methodology of observing the world, testing what works, and then drawing conclusions that allow you to make useful predictions. Demonstrate under controlled circumstances that you can channel interdimensional energies or alter time by wiggling your fingers just so and concentrating real hard? Time to update the rules! That's why you see scientists get so excited when they find something they can't explain - it means they have a chance to update the rules to make them less incomplete/incorrect.

[Christopher R Taylor]

But, that would just mean our understanding of the rules is incorrect or incomplete.

 

Or, it means that science only explains part of reality, and there is more to reality which science is as useful detailing and explaining as music is to describe food.  Again, Dr Strange:

 

 

In other words, magic presumes reality is larger and more full than science is capable of expressing.  Trying to force everything into science is ignoring the rest of that reality.

[Joe Walsh]

Or, it means that science only explains part of reality, and there is more to reality which science is as useful detailing and explaining as music is to describe food.  Again, Dr Strange:

 

In other words, magic presumes reality is larger and more full than science is capable of expressing.  Trying to force everything into science is ignoring the rest of that reality.

 

You're saying that magic could be something that isn't subject to hypothesis, conjecture, and experimentation. That would mean that magic would be an entirely random phenomenon that is uncontrollable by its practitioners.

[bigdamnhero]

You're saying that magic could be something that isn't subject to hypothesis, conjecture, and experimentation. That would mean that magic would be an entirely random phenomenon that is uncontrollable by its practitioners.

Exactly. Science rejects ideas like shakras and faith healing and astral projection because - in our world - they have been tested and have repeatedly failed. There is no evidence for them. But in a world where they did work there would be evidence to that effect, and the knowledge base of what science considers possible would have to be broadened accordingly.

 

Take that scene were the Ancient One pushes Strange's astral form out of his body. Assuming that's something that can be done fairly consistently and half as easily as it's portrayed, that would be trivially easy to prove under controlled circumstances: I push your astral form out, your astral form peeks into the next room, reads something not visible to or known by anyone in the testing room, you come back and report what you read. Repeat enough times to get consistent data, publish, get some other groups of researchers to duplicate your results, and wait for the Nobel Committee to call. The fact that it's outside what science currently considers possible misses the point that science is continuously expanding what it considers possible in light of new evidence.

 

And the notion that magic sees a wider world than science seems almost quaint in the face of ideas like quantum mechanics and many-worlds theory.

 

Don't get me wrong; I loved Dr. Strange, and I loved that scene. But their portrayal of 'the limitations of science" is based on an Art and Film Major's misunderstanding of (and clear disdain for) what science actually is. In a world where magic actually works with any degree of regularity above random chance, that distinction would rapidly become meaningless.

 

Apologies for the derail...

[Old Man]

But, that would just mean our understanding of the rules is incorrect or incomplete.

 

Or that the universe doesn't run on Hero, but some other craptastic system that can't handle it.

[zslane]

Exactly. Science rejects ideas like shakras and faith healing and astral projection because - in our world - they have been tested and have repeatedly failed. There is no evidence for them. But in a world where they did work there would be evidence to that effect, and the knowledge base of what science considers possible would have to be broadened accordingly.

 

Take that scene were the Ancient One pushes Strange's astral form out of his body. Assuming that's something that can be done fairly consistently and half as easily as it's portrayed, that would be trivially easy to prove under controlled circumstances: I push your astral form out, your astral form peeks into the next room, reads something not visible to or known by anyone in the testing room, you come back and report what you read. Repeat enough times to get consistent data, publish, get some other groups of researchers to duplicate your results, and wait for the Nobel Committee to call. The fact that it's outside what science currently considers possible misses the point that science is continuously expanding what it considers possible in light of new evidence.

 

And the notion that magic sees a wider world than science seems almost quaint in the face of ideas like quantum mechanics and many-worlds theory.

 

Don't get me wrong; I loved Dr. Strange, and I loved that scene. But their portrayal of 'the limitations of science" is based on an Art and Film Major's misunderstanding of (and clear disdain for) what science actually is. In a world where magic actually works with any degree of regularity above random chance, that distinction would rapidly become meaningless.

 

Apologies for the derail...

 

I wish I could "like" this post at least 1000 times. But our current science doesn't allow it. I think I need some magic pls...

[bigdamnhero]

Oh, I meant to add: this is usually the point where Wiccan/Pagan friends interject "But that's misrepresenting what magic is! It's not about imposing your will on reality, it's really...[vague stuff about bringing your soul into alignment with the cosmos, etc]." Which is fine, and if that's your vision of magic then that's difficult to prove/disprove. But that's very much not the vision of magic portrayed in Dr. Strange, or in most fantasy, which typically portrays magic as able to cause reliable, measurable effects on the external world.

 

For a more humorous take on what would happen if someone who understood the scientific method encountered actual, working magic, check out Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.

[Bazza]

The external world regardless of perception.

Unless I'm mistaken, science still subscribes to Cartesianism, which splits reality into internal space (mind, transcendence) and external space (materialism, physicality), with a person only knowing their own mind. This implies reality is personal, thus relative & subjective. It also implies that the external world has no existence except in the mind.

 

Science also affirms positivism, which denies the validity of metaphysics (trans-physical and transcendence). Therefore, science wants it both ways – to ‘have its cake and eat it too’.

[TheDarkness]

Oh, I meant to add: this is usually the point where Wiccan/Pagan friends interject "But that's misrepresenting what magic is! It's not about imposing your will on reality, it's really...[vague stuff about bringing your soul into alignment with the cosmos, etc]." Which is fine, and if that's your vision of magic then that's difficult to prove/disprove. But that's very much not the vision of magic portrayed in Dr. Strange, or in most fantasy, which typically portrays magic as able to cause reliable, measurable effects on the external world.

 

For a more humorous take on what would happen if someone who understood the scientific method encountered actual, working magic, check out Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.

Darnit, I was being so productive until you posted that link!

[Bazza]

With all the discussion about what magic is, I am reposting this. I posted it just over a year ago in the Doctor Strange thread and hope to update it in the next few days. 

To throw my 2 cents into the discussion, for what it is worth.

 

 

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Arthur C Clarke in “Profiles of the Future” (revised edition, 1973) (according to wikipedia)

 

“All men by nature desire to know.” - Aristotle in “Metaphysics”. 

 

I contend there is magic; however to modify Clarke's quote a bit and suggest that “'advanced science’ is indistinguishable from magic”. The advanced science I’m going to suggest is what the ancients referred to as metaphysics (“after physics” including its sub-disciplines: first principles, ontology and natural theology). There is much more that could be said on this, specifically the finer detail, but I hope to give the gist of my argument that there is a rational explanation for “magic”.

 

To start with: in ‘the beginning’, Aristotle wrote in his Physics and Metaphysics there were four causes: Formal, Material, Efficient (aka agent cause) and Final (teleology). 

 

In his Advancement of Learning, Sir Francis Bacon took the material and efficient causes for physics, and left the formal and final causes to metaphysics. His reason for doing so was that material and efficient causes has more certainty then formal causes and final causes. As modern science and technology has shown by way of empiricism and the scientific method, Bacon was on to something. 

 

In Rene Descartes' ontology there were/are three substances: res extensa (physical substance, i.e. matter), res cogitans (immaterial substance, i.e. mind or spirit), and God. Alfred North Whitehead later wrote that Descartes ‘bifurcated’ substance into its primary and secondary qualities. Rene Descartes also sought an explanation for reality using a clockwork/mechanical rationale.  

 

Sir Issac Newton incorporated Descartes ontology as the underling premise for his mathematical discoveries in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. With the groundbreaking success of Netwon’s Principia, Cartesian ontology became the underlying premise for scientific explanation. Later philosophers like David Hume et al, are from this tradition, which culminated in empirical positivism, and this became the dominate epistemology for Western culture. 

 

 

But how does physics describe an everyday object like a chair? From the standard model and quantum mechanics of physics, I can understand the physicality of a chair: i.e. its quantum particles, energy, gravitation, thermodynamics, space-time; but physics cannot tell me the form of a chair or its purpose (that I should sit on it). 

 

So we are left with two descriptions of this chair: 1) the physciality (from science) and 2) its corporeality (from philosophical metaphysics).  

 

I contend that Doctor Strange could adopt this as a model for an explanation of “magic”, i.e. that magic manipulates the corporeal nature (essence, form, final cause) of the physical universe. This metaphysical explanation is based on historical precedent and is in accordance with modern science as metaphysics literally is “after physics”. i.e. after the physical and primary qualities of objects.

 

To bring this full circle, I modified Clarke’s Third Law to be “advanced science” as metaphysics was esteemed in the Classical and Medieval Eras, and by using the example of a chair I bring this back to Aristotle’s quote that men desire to know. Know in this case meaning the form and purpose of everyday objects and physical things by both their physical causality (material and agent causes) and corporeal causality (formal and teleological causes). The later, corporeal causality, being assigned to metaphysics by Sir Francis Bacon and in everyday usage could be termed “magic”. 

 

As an example of how my model/explanation of magic can be used  I’m going to use the classical elements: fire, water, earth and air. 

• Fire: Applying the element of Fire from “corporeal space” to physical space-time would cause the elements on the periodic table to increase their vibration thus getting hotter, which can result in combustion. 
• Water: Applying the element of Water from “corporeal space” to physical space-time would result in the periodic elements exhibiting the wave behaviour not the particle behaviour. As a cosmic level this would become a “cosmic sea” as periodic elements and subatomic particles are seen as waves. Another usage would be to create oxygen and hydrogen and join them to create the molecule H2O. 
• Earth: Applying the element of Earth from “corporeal space” to physical space-time would cause matter to become solid or firm as we understand solid and firmness in a everyday sense, i.e. solid objects.
• Air: Applying the element of Air from “corporeal space” to physical space-time would be the opposite of earth, i.e. everyday objects losing its firmness. 

 

 

My point for this relating to Doctor Strange is to say that Tony Stark and Bruce Banner are working within the Aristotelean material & efficient causality, using an epistemology of empirical positivism, with the scientific method. Doctor Strange is using the Aristotelean formal and final causality (which a different methodology), which is why Tony Stark can’t understand how or why Doctor Strange “does magic”. That is all the explanation I feel the MCU needs to be. 

 

[Bazza]

"...today in the physics of elementary particles, good physics is unconsciously being spoiled by bad philosophy..." -- Werner Heisenberg, in "Encounters with Einstein: And Other Essays on People, Places, and Particles" page 82. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

You're saying that magic could be something that isn't subject to hypothesis, conjecture, and experimentation.

 

No, I'm saying Magic would be something not explainable or measurable by scientific method, sort of like "art" and the thoughts bouncing around your head as you read this.  Magic is, by its very definition, a-scientific, outside scientific explanation and examination. That's what makes it magical as opposed to just some mutant power.

 

You can think and love and create art without it being uncontrollably random despite being impossible to measure etc.

 

For me, if magic is just science we don't yet get, it stops being magical.

[Joe Walsh]

For me, if magic is just science we don't yet get, it stops being magical.

 

On that much, we can agree.

[bigdamnhero]

Bazza - Yesterday I started out to writing a detailed response, but it quickly got unbearably long even by my standards. Believe it or not, this is the short version...

 

It's been a long while since I did any serious study on the philosophy of science, but my understanding is Cartesian notions of the subjectivity of experience were largely discarded ages ago by practicing scientists. The whole point of the scientific method is based on the assumption that much of reality is objective, testable, and therefore predictable. Scientists may argue about to what extent science can be applied to things that can't be observed (ie scientific realism pro & con), but I don't believe there's any argument over whether or not it can be applied to the observable - otherwise there wouldn't be much point of doing science at all. Indeed, the whole point of rigorous scientific testing is to remove the subjectivity of the observer as much as possible.

 

I'll grant that none of us can really know how another person perceives the world. But if I perceive that this flashlight produces light that allows me to see, and I hand that flashlight to you, odds are you will act as if it is also producing light and allowing you to see. Which strongly implies that whatever differences in perception exist between us are minimal enough to not be relevant most of the time. Which puts ideas about the subjectivity of experience firmly into the category of "unfalsifiable, and therefore not useful." As Laplace said to Napoleon, "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis."

 

So if you want to define "magic" as really being about meaning and essences and whatnot, that's fine. We could have an interesting philosophical discussion about that. But the minute Dr. Strange opens a teleportation portal to the Himalayas, he has made observable changes to the physical world, and that effect is therefore able to be measured & tested in order to understand the processes involved and formulate theories that (hopefully) allow us to make useful predictions that if I do X it will have Y effect. Ie - science.

[bigdamnhero]

No, I'm saying Magic would be something not explainable or measurable by scientific method, sort of like "art" and the thoughts bouncing around your head as you read this.  Magic is, by its very definition, a-scientific, outside scientific explanation and examination. That's what makes it magical as opposed to just some mutant power.

 

You can think and love and create art without it being uncontrollably random despite being impossible to measure etc.

Of course there is a subjective quality to art. But if I don't understand how complimentary colors work, my art will indeed have an uncontrollably random quality to it. Ditto for my music if I don't understand consonance & dissonance. The whole notion of perspective introduced during the Renaissance was developed based on a mathematical understanding of how people see the world. So while I can't reliably predict how people will subjectively experience my painting, there are still countless pieces of objective & observable knowledge that go into the creation of and the perception of that work of art. Whether we're talking about painting, sculpture, writing, music, whatever - there are underlying objective principles that you need to understand (whether or not you've been formally trained in them) if you're going to have any chance of creating art that people will subjectively appreciate.

 

And even if we're just talking about art appreciation, there are still things that are objectively measurable. If I bring in 100 people and show them a Van Gogh masterpiece placed next to my stick-figure scribbles, and ask which they subjectively find better, I'm betting 100 of them pick the Van Gogh. I can repeat that experiment 100 times, get consistent results, and I can make inferences and predictions based on that. That's part of what successful artists do: they create works, see what people like/dislike, and incorporate that data into future works of art.

 

But all that aside: teleporting to Mt. Everest is not a subjective experience.

 

[bigdamnhero]

[not sure what happened to the end of my last post there]

For me, if magic is just science we don't yet get, it stops being magical.

As a fan, I completely agree. Urban fantasy is one of my favorite genres, and that's a central principle in most UF. Unfortunately, most of the explanations writers make up for why magic is different from science don't stand up to even a casual I'm-a-history-major understanding of how science actually works. I'm happy to suspend my disbelief while I'm inside the movie/book/whatever. But also I recognize that it makes about as much sense as "mutant superpower." And I'm still waiting for some writer to come up with a distinction between science and magic that actually makes a lick of sense.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I hope that future depictions of Dr Strange show much less "martial arts with glowies" and more magical focus.  It makes sense that the students would be taught defensive and combat magic right away, but as the good doctor advances in his training, he should definitely get more sophisticated in his magic.

[Starlord]

As I've repeatedly stated, I'm not sure why something that can't possibly exist needs to 'make sense'.  Each to his own though, I guess.

[Pattern Ghost]

Magic is like porn: We know it when we see it. And it may involve waggling fingers.

[bigdamnhero]

I hope that future depictions of Dr Strange show much less "martial arts with glowies" and more magical focus.

I have mixed feelings here too. The purist fanboy in me agrees. But I also have to admit that at least for me that looked more convincing on screen than Scarlet Witch's "Power Of Making Dramatic Gestures." (As my wife dubbed it.)

 

As I've repeatedly stated, I'm not sure why something that can't possibly exist needs to 'make sense'.  Each to his own though, I guess.

I don't disagree. What pulls me out of my suspension of disbelief is when they try to explain "No really, it does make sense because..." but their explanation makes even less sense.

[bigdamnhero]

Magic is like porn: We know it when we see it. And it may involve waggling fingers.

...and trying to explain it rarely improves the experience.