Magic Real?

[bluesalamanders]

Sean -

With the first part of what you said, I agree completely, of course.

With the second...

To reiterate: I will believe it when it becomes generally accepted scientific fact through repeated and repeatable testing, and not before. I don't understand it, myself, and so can't comment otherwise.

Aradia -

There is nothing that I currently consider magic. There are things that are unexplained, of course, but calling things unexplained and calling things magic are - to me - totally different.

There was a case several years ago that attracted a lot of attention in some circles; many people saw it as "proof" of the existence of god for some reason. There was a woman who could tell the color of a piece of paper with her eyes closed. A miracle! Magic! How amazing!

I wasn't particularly into the story, until I heard the ending, at which point I was fascinated: see, different colors have different wavelengths and therefore have ever-so-slightly different temperatures, and that lady had learned to distinguish between them. And other people could learn to do it, too! All of which, to me, is much more interesting than "magic" or "a miracle".

And yet, the attention and publicity that the case had generated vanished as soon as an explanation was discovered.

That's another part of why the stories of magic and religion hang around so long - there are so many people who prefer stories over the truth.

Blue

[Moeen]

Originally posted by Sean L.:
And Blue, so that means that you're not a big fan of the advanced quantum physics, with people able to influence their surroundings and whatnot by thinking about it right? Because that's "science"...supposedly. Go watch a movie called "What the %&#* D We Know?"

Sean, that movie is not representative of real physics!!! I know it's a popular movie, but it gives people the wrong impression, and contains numerous factual errors, and should not be taken as science! Although I haven't seen the movie myself, what I have heard about it makes me highly doubtful as to whether it has much to say that is actually factual or insightful. For one physicists reaction upon seeing the film, see here. Also, David Albert, one of the scientists interviewed for the films says it heavily misrepresents his views and that he was outraged by the final product. You can find out more about what he has to say here, here, and here. To find out more about the film in general, see it's Wikipedia entry.

[Sean L.]

:P so someone DID see it and knows something of physics.

There are perhaps a couple of factual errors, and your physicist may be reacted negatively to seeing it, if just becuase it's more polarizing than most movies have been. That doesn't deny the fact that that is the direction where current theoretical physics is heading, especially with *biggrin* string theory.

Whether it should be taken as the strict facts is much less important(it's Hollywood, of course it'll be mistaken) as whether the general idea is close to being correct.

That being said, maybe you should go see the movie?

[Aradia Madrea-Nox]

As I said, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, myself. ^^ But the fact remains that it wouldn't be a good reference source, because that'll just get all confusing... and... yeah.

So I'm not thinking coherantly, sorry. My finals started today and my brain fried.

On to the main point (sorry about my personal little rant ^^' ).

Oh wait. I already finished it.

Sorry about that. ^^;

[BabygirlLLE]

I believe magic is real how else could all of the authors know so much about it. They are good at making things up but not that good they have to get information from somewhere. Also if there was no magic how would we get by? I believe that science is an uncomplicated form of magic and that if you dig into the roots of science you will find magic.

[bluesalamanders]

Are you saying that every different method of magic described in every fantasy book is real? How does that work? Many of them are contradictory and couldn't exist together.

~Blue

[Moeen]

Originally posted by Sean L.:
There are perhaps a couple of factual errors,

Originally posted by Sean L.:
That doesn't deny the fact that that is the direction where current theoretical physics is heading, especially with *biggrin* string theory.

I'd be very cautious about claiming you know the facts about current research in fundamental physics if you're not personally involved in it or personally know people who are. I should also point out that physics research that has been hyped by the media does not necessarily represent the direction of current theoretical physics research. Having said that, I should probably say what I know about current research in theoretical physics. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I was an undergrad at Columbia University (graduated just a few weeks back) where I majored in math with a concentration in physics. While I was there, I did get to interact with some of the physics faculty and graduate students doing research there. As far as string theory was concerned, many there were unhappy with it and the situation in theoretical physics overall. The experimentalists I spoke to had a strong dislike for string theory, to say the least, because it made no testable predictions and yet was pretty much sold as a "theory of everything."

In fact, many theoretical physicists are unhappy with the direction theoretical physics research is taking. You see, when string theory started out, it seemed like a really good idea, and as one of my physics professors put it "ten years ago they [the string theorists] made all sorts of statements about how this theory was going to solve everything, but then as the years went by their statements became less and less optimistic." A lot of theoretical physicists thought the theory was soon going to die out, but then a few years ago it became popular among the public, largely due to the efforts of string theorist Brian Greene who popularized it in his book The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, which was then made into a NOVA miniseries. As a result of the publicity, funding for theoretical physics moved over mostly to string theory, effectively giving it a monopoly over theoretical physics research. Due to this monopoly, theoretical physicists who want to work on other ideas have trouble getting funding, or a research position, and so even if there are other good ideas for research they aren't heard. The resulting situation in theoretical physics is pretty bad. Here's an idea that despite having been worked on for twenty years now by many physicists has gotten nowhere and seems to be at dead end, but has managed to take over by playing on people's fantasies of extra dimensions and alternate universes. It's not hard to see why many physicists are unhappy by the over hyping of string theory. (In fact, one of the reasons why I decided to pursue research in math and not theoretical physics was because the situation there was discouraging and I would be forced to work on one idea, but at least in math I could pursue whatever interested me, as long as it was in math.)

The public, though, isn't aware of the situation, and so thinks that string theory is the answer. That is about to change soon, however. Recently physicists unhappy with the situation have started to make public their complaints. For example, the famous theoretical physicist Roger Penrose pointed out how certain aspects of string theory are at the least questionable in his recent book The Road to Reality : A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. The popularizer of physics Lawrence Krauss (author of The Physics of Star Trek) recently wrote the book Hiding in the Mirror : The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions, from Plato to String Theory and Beyond where he provides a history of the public's fascination of extra dimensions, and discusses how string theory is more a part of that fad than a theory of physical laws. This is just the beginning. Two more books are going to come out that directly attack string theory as a failure. One is by the famous theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, entitled The Trouble With Physics : The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, where he argues that fundamental physics research has lost its way, and string theory is to blame. Another is Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory And the Search for Unity in Physical Law, by Peter Woit, who interestingly enough is a theoretician in the same institution as physicist Brian Greene, namely, Columbia University. It'll be interesting to see how things turn out.

Well, sorry for the digression, but just thought I'd point out that science that has been hyped or become a fad doesn't necessarily represent what the scientists are actually doing.

Originally posted by Sean L.:
That being said, maybe you should go see the movie?

Good question... Given what I already know about the movie, it doesn't seem promising. For one, factual errors tend to annoy me, and if a film is full of them, I'll probably be pretty annoyed by the end of it. :P Also, it seems that the movie is basically New Age Religion masquerading as science, which is pretty bad in itself. If I want to expand my horizons and see things froma different point of view, reading books like Hiding in the Mirror will do. In any case, to answer your question, I might give it a shot (though it seems unlikely right now), but if I do I'll say something about it here.

[LightMagic]

I believe magic is real. It apears in different forms. i believe there may be people who have magic powers like in young wizards or Harry potter. i also believe that magic can be found by the average person (like me) in a book, or a person. Magic is real, but it is always apearing in different forms, making it hard for some people to see it!

[Gigo]

Just a few things:

Tiny bit of our minds? You might want to read this. http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

Magic has to exist because it's been in our minds so long? That it's impossible to think up? You misunderestimate the human race. If only we could get the very first edition of the bible, and compare it to a common edition found in any church today. That would sure solve a lot of our problems/questions.

Originally said by Snuffleupagus Really -what is the "first edition" 
of the Bible?  The Gutenberg Bibles?  One laborously 
copied in it's entirety by a scholar some thousands of 
years ago? 

--------------
Physics is not my strong suit so I'll just leave that to the people who know what they're talking about, without adding stuff that I know nothing about into the conversation.

[bluesalamanders]

Peridexis,

You "find [my] insight slightly amusing"? You call me "my dear girl"? You pity me?

Oh, please.

That is one of the most rude, condescending posts I have ever read in these forums, and if I cared about your opinions of me or of my views, then yes, I probably would be offended. It's really a shame you felt the need to respond in such a manner. Even these sorts of topics usually keep a cordial tone around here.

Blue~

[Sean L.]

blue, peri, both of you said some words that were rude and condescending.

Peri, try and keep the 'holier than thou' attitude out of your words. Whether or not you pity her, I don't think you have a right to have or express that attitude here.

Anna, you know as well that some of your attitudes towards faith leaves people sputtering and not terribly happy with you.


I'm not asking you to apologize to each other. Just acknowledge that no one here is perfectly innocent of provocative remarks, and try not to make them in the future, okay?

[bluesalamanders]

Sean, the peacemaker...what a sight

I ask questions and express my opinions politely and calmly. I don't attack or insult people for their beliefs, nor do I look down on them, even if I disagree completely with those beliefs. And in my previous post, I responded to a direct attack against myself and my views and opinions. And the last two sentences were meant honestly, not condescendingly. I said nothing I need to apologize for.

Blue~

[Kathy Li]

Sigh. Do I need to lock this thread?

Please remember that DD has stated the one thing she will not tolerate on this board is intolerance. Everybody may want to refresh themselves.

The key phrase I think you may be looking for here is "agree to disagree."

[Slash]

MM I am suprised that you did not come here a nd screem out load you know what ... I won't but tee-he *smirk* it so funny~

[the_peridexis]

i sincerely apologize, blue, because that wasn't me. for the second time, someone found out my password. i changed it, thanks to PM, (thank you sooo muchi am really really sorry for any troube--i would never insult you because i respect your opinions. i'm not sure what else to say, except that i'm sorry for how rude that must have seemed. i hope you won't stay mad at me (even though it was stupid of me to not have noticed the post right away and delete it) because i think you're a great person who always has something wothwhie to contrubute. a thousand sorries,

-peri

P.S. and thanks to sean for always being the polite diplomat!