Hey /sci/, /tg/ here with a hypothetical question. Imagine magic

If "magic" existed we wouldn't call it magic, it would just be part of the laws of physics.

>>7696828
/thread
Just like magnetism can seem like magic to someone uneducated.

>>7696828
Taking that into account then, or imagine that magic just came to the world suddenly, how would you imagine it working, what would you call it?

>>7696828

Friction is magic. It cannot be described in full detail by any current law in physics.

>>7696825
It does, it's called quantum mechanics :^)

>>7696874
e/m describes friction

>>7696825
If it was real then it'd be real and the rules could be literally anything. Just imagine whatever you want. I don't understand the point of this thread, there's no scientific rules to imagining hypothetical things anon.

>>7696825
You're misunderstanding the way science, and knowledge in general works. If something existed in this world and could be explained it wouldn't be magic. If something can be subject to empirical investigation and encapsulated an explanatory theory then it isn't magic, but rather just another component of a naturalistic world view. Something that's "magical" is ex hypothesi incomprehensible - it can't be investigated or subject to rational analysis.

You seem to be assuming that words have inherent meaning that is beyond human grasp. Its not as though certain phenomenon are somehow magical and some aren't, and ultimately humans can find evidence for assigning one classification or the other to a given type of phenomenon. In other words, whether or not something is magical isn't a fact about the natural world, rather its a fact about how we our concepts. Being "magic" just is being beyond the scope of scientific theory, and hence being beyond the scope comprehension.

>>7696900
Actually that's not entirely true. See subjunctive possibility.

It's literally impossible to either imagine a round square or for a round square to exist.

>>7696946
Pfft no its not I'm imagining a round square right now.

Prove I'm not.

>>7696969
Its logically impossible. You can't imagine a round square because the criterion for something being a square must be specified in spatial terms. These terms ultimately entail that being a square is incompatible with being round.

Your argument that you're "imagining a round square" raises a moot point, since it hinges on an empirical claim and is therefore ultimately irrelevant to the issue. You could indeed be imagining what (in your mental object-language) you might call a "round square", but in this case what you mean by a round square must simply be something entirely different from what I mean by a "round square". I.e. to the extent that the terms in your mental object-language mean the same thing as the terms in my mental object-language, its impossible to be imagining a round square, and if you are in fact imagining what you call a "round square", you're simply imagining something entirely different from what I call a round square.

In short, your claim can be ruled out on logical grounds, which is a much stronger claim than anything you could demonstrate empirically.

On another note, Hempel's Dilemma is worth mentioning here.

>>7697008
Lol just cause you don't understand round squares doesn't mean they're not real bro.

I use round squares everyday.

OP here, I understand that it would no longer be considered magic, but the questions still stand; how would YOU explain it scientifically speaking if it did? What would it be? What would it do? How would it do that?

>>7698203
>how would I explain it?
Its magic

>what would it do?
It would make purple dragons appear out of nowhere.

>how would it do that?
Its magic

You can literally give any answer you want to these questions anon.

>>7696825
I suggest you read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality ( hpmor.com ) for a scientific approach to magic