Magical Sailor Fuku

Blech, no guest posting in the Tea Room! So the identity of the Plush Controller is revealed!
At least... SOMETIMES I'm the Plush Controller.. >.>

Lian wrote:((I am saying when you make up a principle. Its no different than magic. Its just window dressing. When you are using Soft Scifi you are basically using magic in always asside from visuals. THe difference between a magic wand of fireballs and firegun are just personal choice.))

Yeah, but when you're interacting in a fictional environment, window dressing is pretty important, you know?
I know that humans can't launch fireballs from their fingertips. So if suddenly they CAN, I want to know how.
If it's technological, that comes with a certain set of assumptions. It's some device that does that. I can probably use this device, rather than having to be unnaturally sensitive to the Warp, or the descendant of a dragon, or whatever.

((http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/projectile I don't see lasers or Beams falling under that definition.. Plasma arguably))

Okay, then I gave bad parameters, and I apologize. The gun projects something. That's it. It can be anything. I thought projectiles was short for that, but apparently it's more specific than I thought.
My argument remains valid. If you're going to call something a gun, it should fit all those parameters. If you have something called a spontaneous gun, and then we find out that this weapon apparently jumps up close to the enemy and explodes, that violates our assumptions about what a gun is, and we're going to get all whiny about it.

((Can you take appart a magic sword and rebuild it, generally yes. Particular magic systems have assumptions. Much like when you create science principles for fiction.))

You can create principles for magic, but it's not constant from one medium to another, and it's not expected to be. Unlike technology. "Magic" has no assumptions. If you take a certain type of magic, from a certain medium, THEN you can start identify what causes what and making a science out of it. Although most fictions still refer to even well-ordered magic systems as magic, and for obvious reasons.

((Not really because its not the end all be all of Magic. You are just proving that Warp magic doesn't count. SInce they have nothing in common asside from being "Kewl powers" made up by people its really a random setup.. I mean you might as well throw in the Force. Soft Science))

You keep throwing around "soft science" like it means something. What's that?
And if Warp magic doesn't count, why should I assume that any system of magic counts? What are the standards here? There is no standard, because magic is entirely fictional, and can be built from the ground up in each separate medium to be whatever the hell you want it to be.

Now because I've been talking a lot about assumptions, let's discuss them.
We assume that technology is restricted by physical, scientific laws. Technology isn't supposed to violate the laws of physics; rather, it gets around them.
Real world example: Humans cannot fly. It's physically impossible, because we're too heavy and our bodies are not aerodynamic. So we create a machine that CAN fly according to our carefully calculated plans, and stuff people inside of it.

Another example: People cannot generate streams of fire from their hands due to various biological limitations. So we build a device that carries combustible fuel and blasts it out. It's all based on solid scientific principles, can be recreated, and is reliable if it is constructed and used properly.

Science fiction makes the assumption that technology has advanced far enough to circumvent the physics that impede what we now consider impossible, much as early man might have thought of flight and flamethrowers as impossible. Yes, it's all BS. We KNOW that. But it still follows those assumptions, and good science fiction can make a sketchy attempt to explain how it works.
Of course, sometimes the technology stretch is just too much, and it's extremely controversial where the line lies. Still, solid judgments can be made. Example:

Faster than light travel. We have three examples of ships traveling through space faster than the speed of light.
Ship one has really, REALLY big engines. That run on... realfastium fuel.
Ship two is a Star Wars cruiser, and uses a hyperspace engine to enter a dimension of space in which distances are heavily muted.
Ship three has some old guy with a beard who waves his hand and wisks the ship away to wherever he wants.

The first example is bad science fiction, because the creator is in blatant defiance of a physical law that anybody smart enough to read science fiction knows about. No attempt is made to explain away the discrepency -or apply "window dressing" as you put it.
The second example is what I would consider "good" science fiction, because it creates a relatively plausible theoretical solution to the impossibility by hiding it within Quantum physics, which is so weird and complicated that people are willing to make allowances in their assumptions for it.
The third assumption is magic. No attempt is made to explain why this man, and not any of the normal people on the bridge, can open a gate from nowhere, where the energy comes from, or how he directs it so precisely, though if the story's really good, they'll put together some sketchy expose on their magic system to make it seem more "real". The author of that story would probably call it magic too, because if he were to call it another kind of technology, everyone would start imprinting their expectations of what technology is on that example, and keep coming up short. This damages the reality that the creator is trying to generate, and is to be avoided.

There were people who didn't know you were the Plush Controller?

Black Dragon wrote:Blech, no guest posting in the Tea Room! So the identity of the Plush Controller is revealed!
At least... SOMETIMES I'm the Plush Controller.. >.>

Lian wrote:((I am saying when you make up a principle. Its no different than magic. Its just window dressing. When you are using Soft Scifi you are basically using magic in always asside from visuals. THe difference between a magic wand of fireballs and firegun are just personal choice.))

Yeah, but when you're interacting in a fictional environment, window dressing is pretty important, you know?
I know that humans can't launch fireballs from their fingertips. So if suddenly they CAN, I want to know how.
If it's technological, that comes with a certain set of assumptions. It's some device that does that. I can probably use this device, rather than having to be unnaturally sensitive to the Warp, or the descendant of a dragon, or whatever.

All I have to say is Ancient Gene.


And in a world with readily available magic items its all about how one wants to present oneself.

((http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/projectile I don't see lasers or Beams falling under that definition.. Plasma arguably))

Okay, then I gave bad parameters, and I apologize. The gun projects something. That's it. It can be anything. I thought projectiles was short for that, but apparently it's more specific than I thought.
My argument remains valid. If you're going to call something a gun, it should fit all those parameters. If you have something called a spontaneous gun, and then we find out that this weapon apparently jumps up close to the enemy and explodes, that violates our assumptions about what a gun is, and we're going to get all whiny about it.

Look at your definition. It includes magic wands.

More to the point I specifically DEFINED how i was using Paradigm. I said over and over "In my system this is what the word means" Its the terminology for my mechanics. If I say "Spells" because that's a subset of the system. If I use a word in a manner different than standard definitions I will define it as such with the cavete of in this system.

((Can you take appart a magic sword and rebuild it, generally yes. Particular magic systems have assumptions. Much like when you create science principles for fiction.))

You can create principles for magic, but it's not constant from one medium to another, and it's not expected to be. Unlike technology. "Magic" has no assumptions. If you take a certain type of magic, from a certain medium, THEN you can start identify what causes what and making a science out of it. Although most fictions still refer to even well-ordered magic systems as magic, and for obvious reasons.

Technology and science readily vary from medium to medium.. Star Trek Warpdrive doesn't work in Firefly for example. Even things that we might know are untrue(like giant bugs would colapses under theirown weight) might work in certain scifi settings.

((Not really because its not the end all be all of Magic. You are just proving that Warp magic doesn't count. SInce they have nothing in common asside from being "Kewl powers" made up by people its really a random setup.. I mean you might as well throw in the Force. Soft Science))

You keep throwing around "soft science" like it means something. What's that?[/quote]


The sort of Science you see in Soft Scifi.. something like Futurarma or Stargate or Star Trek vs Hard Scifi like some of the works of Larry Niven.

And if Warp magic doesn't count, why should I assume that any system of magic counts? What are the standards here? There is no standard, because magic is entirely fictional, and can be built from the ground up in each separate medium to be whatever the hell you want it to be.

I am saying there is no commonality. Warp Sorcery has as much in common with D&D magic as it does with Accended Ancient powers.. actually I'd argue they have more in common because the Ori have a sort of Chaos God thing going on...

I am also saying there's plenty of "science" created whole sale for scifi shows that has no basis in the real world.

Science fiction makes the assumption that technology has advanced far enough to circumvent the physics that impede what we now consider impossible, much as early man might have thought of flight and flamethrowers as impossible. Yes, it's all BS. We KNOW that. But it still follows those assumptions, and good science fiction can make a sketchy attempt to explain how it works.

You are throwing out a number of scifi subgenres with that... Retrofuture, steampunk.

They readily make use of Technology in their setups.. but they definately violate what we understand falling back on older views of the universe.

Of course, sometimes the technology stretch is just too much, and it's extremely controversial where the line lies. Still, solid judgments can be made. Example:

Faster than light travel. We have three examples of ships traveling through space faster than the speed of light.
Ship one has really, REALLY big engines. That run on... realfastium fuel.
Ship two is a Star Wars cruiser, and uses a hyperspace engine to enter a dimension of space in which distances are heavily muted.
Ship three has some old guy with a beard who waves his hand and wisks the ship away to wherever he wants.

The first example is bad science fiction, because the creator is in blatant defiance of a physical law that anybody smart enough to read science fiction knows about. No attempt is made to explain away the discrepency -or apply "window dressing" as you put it.
The second example is what I would consider "good" science fiction, because it creates a relatively plausible theoretical solution to the impossibility by hiding it within Quantum physics, which is so weird and complicated that people are willing to make allowances in their assumptions for it.
The third assumption is magic. No attempt is made to explain why this man, and not any of the normal people on the bridge, can open a gate from nowhere, where the energy comes from, or how he directs it so precisely, though if the story's really good, they'll put together some sketchy expose on their magic system to make it seem more "real". The author of that story would probably call it magic too, because if he were to call it another kind of technology, everyone would start imprinting their expectations of what technology is on that example, and keep coming up short. This damages the reality that the creator is trying to generate, and is to be avoided.

I'd argue the quality of the writing would determine good vs bad. What you are trying to use is hard vs Soft.


On the Faster than Light Travel we'd have on the hardest end.. "Nope not happening.." and towards the soft end the You'd get teleporters.. with various reasonable grades somewhere in between.


But just because I want to argue against someone waving their wand and teleporting across space would damage a universe to call it science..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abra_Kadabra_%28comics%29

and of course the ultimate scifi deus ex machina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardis

Sophia Anieri wrote:There were people who didn't know you were the Plush Controller?

Quiet, you!

All I have to say is Ancient Gene.

You couldn't have used a more perfect example of what I'm talking about.
I don't recall how they treat the Ancient gene in Stargate. But how it's treated greatly influences the plausibility of the scenario, and the enjoyment of the show.
Let's pretend, for a moment, that it wasn't addressed at all. You need an ancient gene to use Ancient tech. That's it. No explantions. It's just mysterious like that.
That's stupid, because it violates our assumption of what technology is. A gene that has no apparent physical effect on our biology doesn't influence our ability to use tools. If I had that introduced to me, the entire scenario becomes much harder to swallow.
Now let's frame it slightly differently: the Ancient gene codes for a special biological anomaly that allows the user to interface mentally with the technology, since the Ancient technology generally doesn't function using mechanical or electronic triggers. This is a bit sketchy, but it presents the issue in a logical way that doesn't violate any of our assumptions; the user interface is simply of a nature that most people can't use.
Let's frame it differently again: Ancient technology includes a genetic identification device to discriminate against users who do not have the gene, in order to protect the technology from being used by malevolent aliens. This is completely plausible, as it fits our assumptions regarding technology and doesn't even present a serious technological impossibility; we can decode a genome, and we can require a computer to read a certain code before it functions. If you can make a device that can decode a genome in a few seconds, there's nothing unique or particularly bizarre about it.

Three different ways of looking at the same thing, and yet each one would impact how one deals with and perceives the scenario very differently. Whether or not any of them would literally work is unimportant.

Look at your definition. It includes magic wands.

Actually, it doesn't, because wands don't include a physical ammunition source, but that's beside the point. You can include catapults as well, and a few other things that aren't guns. It doesn't matter if there are other things that fit those assumptions. As long as the thing you call a gun fits the assumptions for guns, it's fine.

More to the point I specifically DEFINED how i was using Paradigm.

That's fine; this isn't about the Paradigm thing anymore. This is strictly about the distinction between magic and technology.

Technology and science readily vary from medium to medium.. Star Trek Warpdrive doesn't work in Firefly for example. Even things that we might know are untrue(like giant bugs would colapses under theirown weight) might work in certain scifi settings.

Yes, that actual DEVICES do vary, but the technology assumptions do not. And more to the point: how do YOU know that a warp drive wouldn't work
in the Firefly universe? They both operate under the same physical laws. They merely address the same problem in different ways. You can make arguments against one or the other - because ALL FTL travel as we know it is impossible - but part of the technology assumption is that the particular universe you're in doesn't affect how your devices function.

The sort of Science you see in Soft Scifi.. something like Futurarma or Stargate or Star Trek vs Hard Scifi like some of the works of Larry Niven.

First of all, DON'T use Futurama in this discussion. Futurama is not science fiction, it's comedy that freely mocks the mechanics of science fiction.
Second of all, telling me that soft science is what you see in soft sci-fi doesn't clarify anything. What's soft science as opposed to hard science?

I am saying there is no commonality. Warp Sorcery has as much in common with D&D magic as it does with Accended Ancient powers..

Exactly. And they each have completely different assumptions as well. D&D magic assumes that magic is something that's fixated in the mind and then expelled like ammunition. Warp sorcery assumes that magic is just the refinement of unstable, raw energy, to be tapped and thrown about until one makes a mistake and get himself et. Ascended Ancient powers... were really dumb, and if you ask me, the lowest point of the Stargate series.

I am also saying there's plenty of "science" created whole sale for scifi shows that has no basis in the real world.

What does it mean that it "has no basis in the real world"? That could mean anything, from using energy forms that don't exist or experiencing anomalies that are physcially impossible (like, say, a Warp storm). But does the science violate our assumptions of what science is? Show me.

You are throwing out a number of scifi subgenres with that... Retrofuture, steampunk.

They readily make use of Technology in their setups.. but they definately violate what we understand falling back on older views of the universe.

I don't know what any of that means. You're going to have to give specific examples of what it is that violates our assumptions.

I'd argue the quality of the writing would determine good vs bad. What you are trying to use is hard vs Soft.

No matter how smooth your prose is, offering a completely implausible solution to a problem hurts the scenario.
Of course, good writing can get around it... by using assumptions.
Because we KNOW that technology comes with a set of assumptions, we can be vague and not mess with the particulars, and people will assume it checks out. If you say that a device does something, we assume that the device fits our understanding of technology, and there are a whole set of understandings that come with that. Alternatively, you can say that a character does something using magic, but that's harder to get away with without good writing, since we can't use our assumptions to compensate for the lack of explanation.

Example:
Black Dragon raises the Yellow Energy cannon, and fires a bright beam at the catgirl, vaporizing her instantly.

Versus...

Black Dragon gestures at the catgirl, and she disintigrates in a flash of light as the Yellow Energy magic hits her.

Both are equally fake, but because the first one involves something called a cannon, which is a product of technology. We can make assumptions as to its functions and its limitations, and that helps frame the scenario. The second one is much sketchier, because we don't know how the character knows magic all of a sudden, how he directs it, or how it forms into this curiously unique and bizarre energy form.
This can be fixed with extra exposition, but you can see my point. The assumptions of technology helps better frame the situation at hand and makes it more "real".

Black Dragon wrote:Example:
Black Dragon raises the Yellow Energy cannon, and fires a bright beam at the catgirl, vaporizing her instantly.

Versus...

Black Dragon gestures at the catgirl, and she disintigrates in a flash of light as the Yellow Energy magic hits her.

I'm partial to universes that have both science and magic, for the first example you gave BD my first thought was the cannon was a device used to channel the users energy through, since i personally am not too attuned to 'energy' as a balistic material. On the other hand if it was a 'Yellow Plasma Cannon' I would have considdered it as something from Doom, plasma is super hot matter that moves too fast to be gasious, the science fiction is how it's contained and expelled without going in any direction it pleases once released.


And for my own addition that related to something said perviously on magic wands not being a gun or projectile because it doesn't use real amunition~ In the Outlaw Star series there's the Caster shells. They're special guns with magical amunition, theres 19 different kinds of shells if i recal correctly. The idea behind them is the ancient Casters (wisards in respect) started harnessing the power of their spells into shells for use by people not magically attuned. I don't remember if it ever mentioned why the Casters did this, but they explained enough for me to enjoy the concept of their magical gun.

I'm not out to make any sort of point, particularly since I probly won't have anything else to add later, I just flow with what certain series toss out, keeping an open mind knowing that they don't have to follow rules set by others. That's what makes entertainment entertaining, and keeps things from being too recycled. Besides, if you look too closely, you may loose sight of the story/plot =)

Many universes do have technology and magic, and the creators differentiate the two because they operate in obvious and distinct spheres.
Stargate is mostly technology, but out of the blue they throw in "Ascension," which is turning into an energy being when you die and doing all sorts of nifty things without any respect for technological assumptions.
Star Wars had the Force, as well. They include these facets as systems that clearly do not operate under the same restrictions and assumptions as the rest of the technology. These systems aren't explained in the same manner as the technology, because there's no reason for us to assume that they face the same physical obstacles. I.E. when Luke floats a rock into the air, we don't shout "foul" because there's no way that the air could exert enough force to lift the rock based on Luke's mental processes; we accept that the Force isn't bound by physics. On the other hand, if there was no apparent mechanism by which the speeders hovered over the ground, I'd find that seriously troubling.
There's nothing at all to keep people from combining magic and technology. However, it's useful to maintain the two forces as distinct from each other. Thus, we know that the gun in Outlaw Star fires a projectile in the expected manner of a gun, yet we're not shocked when insensible stuff happens to the magic bullets.

Black Dragon wrote:

All I have to say is Ancient Gene.

You couldn't have used a more perfect example of what I'm talking about.
I don't recall how they treat the Ancient gene in Stargate. But how it's treated greatly influences the plausibility of the scenario, and the enjoyment of the show.
Let's pretend, for a moment, that it wasn't addressed at all. You need an ancient gene to use Ancient tech. That's it. No explantions. It's just mysterious like that.
That's stupid, because it violates our assumption of what technology is. A gene that has no apparent physical effect on our biology doesn't influence our ability to use tools. If I had that introduced to me, the entire scenario becomes much harder to swallow.

But you would quite readily accept "This magic sword only works for elves"


As there's stuff in real life people can't do. The idea that having a Gene that allows yo to do something doesn't seem all far fetched. A Blind person can't see they can't use all our bits of technology built for seeing. A person with no legs can't drive a car.

That's ignoring stuff like "you aren't smart enough to figure this out" or "you have no artistic skill" which would lead to an inability to use so much we have available.

Now let's frame it slightly differently: the Ancient gene codes for a special biological anomaly that allows the user to interface mentally with the technology, since the Ancient technology generally doesn't function using mechanical or electronic triggers. This is a bit sketchy, but it presents the issue in a logical way that doesn't violate any of our assumptions; the user interface is simply of a nature that most people can't use.

I can see, my blind friend can't. I have sensativity to the "visual spectrum" this gives me powers beyond him.

Just as we can concieve the idea that people might be less than average the idea that someone might have a Sixth Sense . Its plasuable after all our technology has shown us there is plenty to "see" that we cannot.

Now lets assume there are other dimentions, this is something that theorized heavily so there's some scientific basis.

Now its plausable that someone might have a genetic anomolgy that allows them to see into these other realms.. connect to them.

Now the warp is fiction, but you can see where I am pointing out the scientific plausability of Warp sensativity. Its much the same as you describe


If you jump through enough hurtles and say "Well it works this way because I want it to" That's how soft scifi works.

Let's frame it differently again: Ancient technology includes a genetic identification device to discriminate against users who do not have the gene, in order to protect the technology from being used by malevolent aliens. This is completely plausible, as it fits our assumptions regarding technology and doesn't even present a serious technological impossibility; we can decode a genome, and we can require a computer to read a certain code before it functions. If you can make a device that can decode a genome in a few seconds, there's nothing unique or particularly bizarre about it.

Now this one is abit less Deus Ex Machinay.

Lets use a crazy post singularity society as an example... ones who's technology include nanotech swarms leaves them lying all over the place.

Now lets have the species disappear and a new one arise who learn afew of the words and might command these "spirits" to do certain actions..

Software that recognizes particular commands are readily available, machines that can take simple commands are readily available. Nanotech is very much believed to be possible in the real world


So this scenario of "sorcerers" should be quite plausable.

But just as some engineer will point out the many holes I have in my logic, they would readily point out the holes in your logic.. we are both jumping through hoops.

Three different ways of looking at the same thing, and yet each one would impact how one deals with and perceives the scenario very differently. Whether or not any of them would literally work is unimportant.

Whether or not the litterally work or not is very important. Because I can start with basic assumptions "all physical laws exist as normal" in a fantasy setting (I could also start with Aristotle was right!)

Now in said fantasy setting people make certain discoveries, which allow them to do things we cannot. They have discovered some how to things combust with the right words and gestures. It doesn't work in the real world but neither would a scifi raygun.

And because these laws are real in their world they have done the work of science.

Look at your definition. It includes magic wands.

Actually, it doesn't, because wands don't include a physical ammunition source, but that's beside the point. You can include catapults as well, and a few other things that aren't guns. It doesn't matter if there are other things that fit those assumptions. As long as the thing you call a gun fits the assumptions for guns, it's fine.

More to the point I specifically DEFINED how i was using Paradigm.

That's fine; this isn't about the Paradigm thing anymore. This is strictly about the distinction between magic and technology.

No this is about aruging the definitions of words. I gave a definition of Technology that would include magic. One that is found in a dictionary. You are arguing for the "that's not the defintion I am using"

Technology and science readily vary from medium to medium.. Star Trek Warpdrive doesn't work in Firefly for example. Even things that we might know are untrue(like giant bugs would colapses under theirown weight) might work in certain scifi settings.

Yes, that actual DEVICES do vary, but the technology assumptions do not. And more to the point: how do YOU know that a warp drive wouldn't work
in the Firefly universe? They both operate under the same physical laws. They merely address the same problem in different ways. You can make arguments against one or the other - because ALL FTL travel as we know it is impossible - but part of the technology assumption is that the particular universe you're in doesn't affect how your devices function.

Yes they do. Firefly doesn't have FTL. Its the only tv series I can think of that didn't postulate it. Its all one large solar system.

My point in general, FTL travel is a fictioous concept. It is just as real as "Wave your hands and set people on fire" Some universes include that it is possible and that it can be done in specific ways.

SOme don't. Many universes add things that don't exist in the real world for the purposes of story and then build technology around it. They are not universal because they are fictional.

The sort of Science you see in Soft Scifi.. something like Futurarma or Stargate or Star Trek vs Hard Scifi like some of the works of Larry Niven.

First of all, DON'T use Futurama in this discussion. Futurama is not science fiction, it's comedy that freely mocks the mechanics of science fiction.
Second of all, telling me that soft science is what you see in soft sci-fi doesn't clarify anything. What's soft science as opposed to hard science?
[/quote]

No Futurama is a perfect example. Its parody and humor, scientific laws are regularly created or ignored for the purpose of story. That's Soft Scifi. Hard Scifi add no special sciences. No questionable jumps only something that can be made based on our understanding of things. So no FTL, no alien crossbreeding, no Giant insects.

I am saying there is no commonality. Warp Sorcery has as much in common with D&D magic as it does with Accended Ancient powers..

Exactly. And they each have completely different assumptions as well. D&D magic assumes that magic is something that's fixated in the mind and then expelled like ammunition. Warp sorcery assumes that magic is just the refinement of unstable, raw energy, to be tapped and thrown about until one makes a mistake and get himself et. Ascended Ancient powers... were really dumb, and if you ask me, the lowest point of the Stargate series.
[/quote]

My comment is there is no comonality of Magic, asside from the fact that it is fiction.

I am also saying there's plenty of "science" created whole sale for scifi shows that has no basis in the real world.

What does it mean that it "has no basis in the real world"? That could mean anything, from using energy forms that don't exist or experiencing anomalies that are physcially impossible (like, say, a Warp storm). But does the science violate our assumptions of what science is? Show me

A warp storm, a Stargate, FTL these violate the laws of science as we understand them.

Yeah assuming such things existed then they could exist because of x y and Z but at the same time assuming magic existed it could readily have its explanations.

.

You are throwing out a number of scifi subgenres with that... Retrofuture, steampunk.

They readily make use of Technology in their setups.. but they definately violate what we understand falling back on older views of the universe.

I don't know what any of that means. You're going to have to give specific examples of what it is that violates our assumptions.[/quote]

You've never read anything steampunk? I'll use Lumonous Ether this is famously discredited theory. It was the medium by which light traveled. Now if a star ship makes use of such to travel the blackness of space. Is that scifi?

the Steampunk genre would argue for it

I'd argue the quality of the writing would determine good vs bad. What you are trying to use is hard vs Soft.

No matter how smooth your prose is, offering a completely implausible solution to a problem hurts the scenario.
Of course, good writing can get around it... by using assumptions.
Because we KNOW that technology comes with a set of assumptions, we can be vague and not mess with the particulars, and people will assume it checks out. If you say that a device does something, we assume that the device fits our understanding of technology, and there are a whole set of understandings that come with that. Alternatively, you can say that a character does something using magic, but that's harder to get away with without good writing, since we can't use our assumptions to compensate for the lack of explanation.

Example:
Black Dragon raises the Yellow Energy cannon, and fires a bright beam at the catgirl, vaporizing her instantly.

Versus...

Black Dragon gestures at the catgirl, and she disintigrates in a flash of light as the Yellow Energy magic hits her.

Both are equally fake, but because the first one involves something called a cannon, which is a product of technology. We can make assumptions as to its functions and its limitations, and that helps frame the scenario. The second one is much sketchier, because we don't know how the character knows magic all of a sudden, how he directs it, or how it forms into this curiously unique and bizarre energy form.
This can be fixed with extra exposition, but you can see my point. The assumptions of technology helps better frame the situation at hand and makes it more "real".

No they are both window dressing. They are both doing equally impossible things. An intertialess canon that desintegrates a body completely that uses an unknown energy source. Does it use charges? does he have an infinate amount thanks to a cosmic collector? What sort of eenergy does it use? why doesn't it kill him when he's near it?

and I will say once again by the definition I gave.. both are technology.

Black Dragon wrote:Many universes do have technology and magic, and the creators differentiate the two because they operate in obvious and distinct spheres.
Stargate is mostly technology, but out of the blue they throw in "Ascension," which is turning into an energy being when you die and doing all sorts of nifty things without any respect for technological assumptions.
Star Wars had the Force, as well. They include these facets as systems that clearly do not operate under the same restrictions and assumptions as the rest of the technology. These systems aren't explained in the same manner as the technology, because there's no reason for us to assume that they face the same physical obstacles. I.E. when Luke floats a rock into the air, we don't shout "foul" because there's no way that the air could exert enough force to lift the rock based on Luke's mental processes; we accept that the Force isn't bound by physics. On the other hand, if there was no apparent mechanism by which the speeders hovered over the ground, I'd find that seriously troubling.
There's nothing at all to keep people from combining magic and technology. However, it's useful to maintain the two forces as distinct from each other. Thus, we know that the gun in Outlaw Star fires a projectile in the expected manner of a gun, yet we're not shocked when insensible stuff happens to the magic bullets.

and I argue that it depends on the story. Orion combined the two completely there was no difference. Prayers and circuitry... "atoms" of Karma


I am saying the value of difference in the window dressing is in what it brings to the story rather than some "This is science" "this is magic"


If someone wants to use massive machines to manipulate the basic units of Karma if it helps the story and develops the universe it doesn't matter.

Oh, you two... Hey, let's see what silliness is in store now that I'm here. :O

I think the key element between the two is "fiction." There's science in fiction, and then there's magic, which will be fiction until it finds some place or definition in science. Science in fiction, to me, has to be based on machinery and gadgets, with or without decent explanation; so long as we identify it as something that we make to produce effects beyond our normal capacity. Magic works the same way, but the difference is that it's not meant to identify with anything from reality.

How something works is considered a science, so there can even be science behind the magic. It's really up to you how you split the hairs. But when I think of a wand, magic dictates that it works by channeling the user's energy or, if there was a crystal at the top, that that crystal has some power that the user can tap into and use. In science fiction, on the other hand, I can't really imagine how the wand would work... Perhaps the wand is really an instrument that pinpoints targets and communicates with satellites when the user has chosen an action for where the wand is pointed. And from out of the sky a laser beam, or bolt of energy, crispifies the enemy! :O

When I think about the mutants in the X-men universe, I consider the X-gene to be magic because it defies everything scientific, even about genes themselves. Yet one could still say that it's science fiction because it's loosely based on scientific understanding; it's just that the whole evolving process is exaggerated far beyond what genes (and in particular one gene) are capable of. When you get right down to genes, however, it wouldn't be any different than inheriting the capacity for magic through an elf parent; so something like that would ultimately be magic. So the real difference seems to be how unlikely it is for something to have any chance of being real. Machines and gadgets, no matter what they do, add credibility to the science element simply because we understand that machines and gadgets are scientific technology; how well we get to know how they work usually doesn't really matter by that point. At least the lack of information is usually better for science fiction in comparison to how some try to explain how magic works, or how spells are cast... Really, if someone can't explain to me why some humans can use magic while others can't, no matter what else they say, the science behind magic is crap and thus the magic being used. But I guess the whole point of magic is that you're not supposed to be intelligent to use it; you just use your imagination and let things happen. Even in Harry Potter we know that witches and wizards, even as they're "coming into" their power as children, can use magic without a wand. And magic without a wand, particularly in Lily's case, has been shown to be utilized in a controlled, directed manner. And yet there's no explanation for why most humans don't have access to their own magic, or why some in wizarding families end up with little or no magic. So it's clearly magic because it's completely nonsensical.

That's how it seems to me, anyway. It depends on how familiar we are with something in reality and how much sense there is behind the workings of something. Machinery and gadgets tend to lend us some clue as to the workings behind them while magic will try to make sense of things, yet it never actual touches upon anything that we know in reality. Some are sneaky and try to use some kind of scientific basis to explain things, like in the X-men universe, but I don't think that's enough either way.

There! Did I bore anyone to death? Mwa-ha-ha!

... I just wrote an hour-and-a-half rebuttal to this... and the ****ing site just erased it all.
I'll get back to this some other day. *Sigh*

That sucks. That's why I prefer to write anything lengthy in wordpad, and any average-sized post I copy so I can paste it if the submitting process messes up. *Pats your shoulder* I shall await your rebuttal! Although it's probably toward Lian and I'm just a silly ghost.

<.<

>.>

O.o

Lian, I just want to point out that most of your examples of ridiculous scifi are theoretically possible, and many can even be done to a lesser (albeit ineffective) degree. First, lets take the laser gun. What's the concept behind it? A laser shoots out that is powerful and concentrated enough to cause serious burns. It is usually in an extremely small burst, which would be emitting the laser for only a very very small fraction of a second, as that is all you need to burn your target, and you don't want to risk causing excessive damage should you miss. Now, is this plausible? Have you ever seen a laser pointer? Do you think you could give it a far more powerful lens and power source, given scientific advances? Could you then set to to fire for a fraction of a second per pull of the trigger? There, you have yourself a laser gun.

Next up, the poor Stargate that you like to pick on so much. Are worm holes theoretically possible? Yes. Can we compress objects with modern technology? Yes. Is the sole requirement for a black hole significant enough density? Yes. What is a wormhole, theoretically? A black hole connected to a white hole. (Keep in mind that according to Hawking, a black hole and white hole are the same thing, meaning if you can create a black hole you can create a white hole) So, now all you need to be able to create a black hole and a white hole is to be able to compress matter enough. Given advances in technology, who are you to say that we can't accomplish what nature has done millions upon millions of times? Now, the last issue would be aligning the gravity wells of the two holes to connect their throats. It's hard enough to comprehend, given that it requires considering gravitational force as a fourth dimension, and you have to consider the curvature of space, but who are you to say it can't be done? You even conveniently linked me on wikipedia, proving that wormholes have a real scientific basis.

BD was completely right about the ancient gene, by the way. The technology check to make sure that the user is an ancient in order to keep their enemies from using it against them. Another example of something we could do given some advancement of what is already possible.

Your example about nanites being confused with sorcery makes me want to take up writing just so I can use that for a plot... Did you get that from somewhere? Anyway, that is pure science. Just because a "primitive" confuses it for magic, doesn't mean it is. You essentially have to look at the reasons behind what is happening in confusing cases like you present, but most people make it pretty clear-cut. For instance, take World of Darkness. Mages use their force of will to bend reality to their whim. The game is even called, Mage, The Awakened. That is just as spiritual as the werewolves and vampires are, if not more so. (By the way, I talked to my storyteller, and while he agrees that the word spell isn't the one they use, it is still quite appropriate for making someone burst into flames by mere force of will)

FTL travel. Once again, we return to black holes, but not directly this time. This time, it's more to point out that there is a fourth dimension that is bent through normal space. The idea of traveling through "warp" space is based loosely on concepts like this. Can we do it now? No. Do we know it is possible? No. Do we know that it is not possible? No. The point here is that FTL travel is based on a shaky premise, but we assume it is possible since we don't know it isn't. Magic, on the other hand, is more about defying the laws of physics. Take Slayers, which I'm watching now. Lina Inverse points at someone, says fireball, and the person is incinerated. Do we assume that she used some device or process to siphon the surrounding energy into a small area, causing the air to ignite, or do we assume it's magic, because it's not supposed to follow the laws of physics?

If that's your definition of soft science, I pity you for thinking Stargate and Startrek are soft science. I find FTL travel to be far more plausible than finding significant life in a single solar system, unless all the life comes from one planet. Calling Futurama scifi is like calling Disgaea a biblical game because it involves demons and angels.

As for your last point, his second example would only be technology if, when asked how he did that, he could point out some underlying technology or process (which would have to be repeatable!) that led to the results. I.E. Nanites on the catgirl's skin burst into life in response to the gesture, flooding the unfortunate catgirl with fatal amounts of yellow energy, disintegrating her in a flash of yellow light.

Syllinia wrote:Lian, I just want to point out that most of your examples of ridiculous scifi are theoretically possible, and many can even be done to a lesser (albeit ineffective) degree. First, lets take the laser gun. What's the concept behind it? A laser shoots out that is powerful and concentrated enough to cause serious burns. It is usually in an extremely small burst, which would be emitting the laser for only a very very small fraction of a second, as that is all you need to burn your target, and you don't want to risk causing excessive damage should you miss. Now, is this plausible? Have you ever seen a laser pointer? Do you think you could give it a far more powerful lens and power source, given scientific advances? Could you then set to to fire for a fraction of a second per pull of the trigger? There, you have yourself a laser gun.

Where did I question a laser gun? My commentary is more properly on the specifics of such. More I went after the idea of the raygun or yellow energy

Next up, the poor Stargate that you like to pick on so much. Are worm holes theoretically possible? Yes. Can we compress objects with modern technology? Yes. Is the sole requirement for a black hole significant enough density? Yes. What is a wormhole, theoretically? A black hole connected to a white hole. (Keep in mind that according to Hawking, a black hole and white hole are the same thing, meaning if you can create a black hole you can create a white hole) So, now all you need to be able to create a black hole and a white hole is to be able to compress matter enough. Given advances in technology, who are you to say that we can't accomplish what nature has done millions upon millions of times? Now, the last issue would be aligning the gravity wells of the two holes to connect their throats. It's hard enough to comprehend, given that it requires considering gravitational force as a fourth dimension, and you have to consider the curvature of space, but who are you to say it can't be done? You even conveniently linked me on wikipedia, proving that wormholes have a real scientific basis.

I don't question the validity of Wormholes. I was questioning the "its a blackhole" I was questioning "its two blackholes linked together" That's why I posted both links to show what you were saying.


I am saying "Given suffcient Technology" is basically the same as "given the right magic words"

Yes There are some real world bits. So would be the case of We know fire exists. We know words exist. Now assuming infinite understanding of words one must make fire..

BD was completely right about the ancient gene, by the way. The technology check to make sure that the user is an ancient in order to keep their enemies from using it against them. Another example of something we could do given some advancement of what is already possible.

We have no idea we could ever do that. its entirely "Given enough development based on these premises of technology we could do it"


It is no different than deciding to fill in warp sensativity.

Your example about nanites being confused with sorcery makes me want to take up writing just so I can use that for a plot... Did you get that from somewhere? Anyway, that is pure science.

Of course its pure science in that setting. Now it violates a bunch of our understanding of things Its a pretty extreme example of the cliche of "just use nanites for magic" that people get in scifi.

Just because a "primitive" confuses it for magic, doesn't mean it is. You essentially have to look at the reasons behind what is happening in confusing cases like you present, but most people make it pretty clear-cut.

Not really, my point is it doesn't matter whether Stargates are magic teleporation rings or have complicated science sounding words. They follow the same function in a story.

More most Magic systems have a well developed "Science" its not real world but neither is say FTL. Its making cool things up for the story.

For instance, take World of Darkness. Mages use their force of will to bend reality to their whim. The game is even called, Mage, The Awakened. That is just as spiritual as the werewolves and vampires are, if not more so. (By the way, I talked to my storyteller, and while he agrees that the word spell isn't the one they use, it is still quite appropriate for making someone burst into flames by mere force of will)

I am using acension not awakening. Awakening is about spells, and occult.

Accension is about philosophy, and what beliefs really mean.

Now in mage each and every mage has a focus for their effects. So lets go the setting on fire example. One might have a Psionic Paradigm. They are purely willing someone to catch fire. Another might have a Hermetic one.. they say the right words, fire happens.. a third might be a technocrat. They command nanites.. things burn. Each of them from a game perspective is rolling the same dice but each is litterally working within their Paradigm get things done.'

And for each of them they are right. That's the point of it.

FTL travel. Once again, we return to black holes, but not directly this time. This time, it's more to point out that there is a fourth dimension that is bent through normal space. The idea of traveling through "warp" space is based loosely on concepts like this. Can we do it now? No. Do we know it is possible? No. Do we know that it is not possible? No. The point here is that FTL travel is based on a shaky premise, but we assume it is possible since we don't know it isn't.

We are fairly certain it is. That's why there's all that effort in Scifi to create new ways to get around such things.

Magic, on the other hand, is more about defying the laws of physics. Take Slayers, which I'm watching now. Lina Inverse points at someone, says fireball, and the person is incinerated. Do we assume that she used some device or process to siphon the surrounding energy into a small area, causing the air to ignite, or do we assume it's magic, because it's not supposed to follow the laws of physics?

No, the premise of slayers is that there are certain Extra physical laws. Much like the "if we add these laws of nature we get FTL" If one adds these laws of nature one gets fireball.

If that's your definition of soft science, I pity you for thinking Stargate and Startrek are soft science. I find FTL travel to be far more plausible than finding significant life in a single solar system, unless all the life comes from one planet. Calling Futurama scifi is like calling Disgaea a biblical game because it involves demons and angels.

I don't find the idea of finding a bunch of life in one system particularly plausable.. I do find based on our current understanding the possibility that a system might have more habitable worlds than ours that took centuries to get to more likely based on current understanding of physics than Warp drive.


as for Futurama not being scifi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Fiction

You got on my case over and over about misusing paradigm...

As for your last point, his second example would only be technology if, when asked how he did that, he could point out some underlying technology or process (which would have to be repeatable!) that led to the results. I.E. Nanites on the catgirl's skin burst into life in response to the gesture, flooding the unfortunate catgirl with fatal amounts of yellow energy, disintegrating her in a flash of yellow light.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Technology

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Science


Nope doesn't need Nanites or any such thing. If he can repeat it over and over again. Its technology

Lian wrote:Where did I question a laser gun? My commentary is more properly on the specifics of such. More I went after the idea of the raygun or yellow energy

The basic raygun is a lasergun, it firing a ray of light. Now, so far as yellow energy goes, that seems more like magic to me. It is the counterpart to violet energy, which has entirely magical properties when you consider it. For instance, its ability to change both biological and non biological devices "cute," which implies that it has some sort of underlying consciousness, in addition to the fact that... well... according to Rowan, it actually does have its own consciousness, as Azer found out when he studied it. Seeing at yellow energy is the counterpart to the mystical violet energy, and it is used by people who's specialty is mixing the mystical and the technological, I find it most likely that you are right in that the energy itself is not scientifically based.

Lian wrote:I don't question the validity of Wormholes. I was questioning the "its a blackhole" I was questioning "its two blackholes linked together" That's why I posted both links to show what you were saying.


I am saying "Given suffcient Technology" is basically the same as "given the right magic words"

Yes There are some real world bits. So would be the case of We know fire exists. We know words exist. Now assuming infinite understanding of words one must make fire..

First of all, you are questioning what you proved is supposed to be possible. And saying that "'Given sufficient Technology' is basically the same as 'given the right magic words'" is ridiculous. That would be like calling someone crazy for saying they had an idea for a more efficient combustion engine. Scientific advancement will happen, this is a fact. Guessing how it will happen is science fiction. Saying "given sufficient technology" is just looking ahead. And your last part makes no sense at all. Care to clarify?

Lian wrote:We have no idea we could ever do that. its entirely "Given enough development based on these premises of technology we could do it"


It is no different than deciding to fill in warp sensativity.

Actually, we could do that now, it would just require you to give a drop of blood to the machine and then wait a while. This is the most solid thing here, so questioning this is like thinking it's ridiculous that we could every get a man on Mars. We haven't done it, we have only done something to a smaller degree.

Lian wrote:Of course its pure science in that setting. Now it violates a bunch of our understanding of things Its a pretty extreme example of the cliche of "just use nanites for magic" that people get in scifi.

What understandings does it violate. As soon as you find out that its nanites not sorcery, it is very clear cut. If anything, this proves our point that the two are separate.

Lian wrote:Not really, my point is it doesn't matter whether Stargates are magic teleporation rings or have complicated science sounding words. They follow the same function in a story.

More most Magic systems have a well developed "Science" its not real world but neither is say FTL. Its making cool things up for the story.

If by complicated science words, you mean words that everyone who watches sci-fi understands the basic concepts of and would are might well be possible, then you are right. If they were magic rings, that would be fine from a story point of view. It just simply wouldn't have to do with scifi anymore because it would be magic. It sounds like your point is "just because science explains stuff and is based off real world things, doesn't mean its any different than magic which has no need for such explinations."

Lian wrote:I am using acension not awakening. Awakening is about spells, and occult.

Accension is about philosophy, and what beliefs really mean.

Now in mage each and every mage has a focus for their effects. So lets go the setting on fire example. One might have a Psionic Paradigm. They are purely willing someone to catch fire. Another might have a Hermetic one.. they say the right words, fire happens.. a third might be a technocrat. They command nanites.. things burn. Each of them from a game perspective is rolling the same dice but each is litterally working within their Paradigm get things done.'

And for each of them they are right. That's the point of it.

Here's where the spell part comes in. They have to use their willpower to shift reality so that they can use their paradigm. Without being able to do this, they would simply say, "haha! You catch on fire." then look disappointed as nothing happens because their paradigm isn't an accurate one from the world. The paradigm part isn't the magic, it's how having a different paradigm matters, the shifting of reality.

Lian wrote:We are fairly certain it is. That's why there's all that effort in Scifi to create new ways to get around such things.

Fairly certain? That still means it might be done. Check and mate!

Lian wrote:No, the premise of slayers is that there are certain Extra physical laws. Much like the "if we add these laws of nature we get FTL" If one adds these laws of nature one gets fireball.

Now, I don't know what you are smoking, but the premise of Slayers Magic is actually the powerful demons grant you some of their magic power to allow you to cast black magic, or the gods do to cast white magic. I'm not sure what the source of shamanistic magic is, maybe the human soul? Anyway, things like fireball and grey wing don't pretend to be based on scientific laws. Simply saying "nuh uh! Your wrong because I said so!" wont change the facts.

Lian wrote:as for Futurama not being scifi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Fiction

You got on my case over and over about misusing paradigm...

I didn't say that it wasn't science fiction. I said it was scienci fiction like Disgaea was a biblical game. Disgaea is about the struggle between angels and demons, with humans stuck right in the middle. It is very loosely related to biblical themes, much as Futurama is loosely related to science.

Lian wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Technology

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Science


Nope doesn't need Nanites or any such thing. If he can repeat it over and over again. Its technology

You should really read the definition. The first definition there says what we are saying, and my definition of science is the scientific one, so I don't really care about what dictionary.com says for that. (If there is one time where you can use a special definition, it is when you are discussing that thing) So, once again, you provide a convenient link to prove that you're wrong. Thank you!

Syllinia wrote:

Lian wrote:Where did I question a laser gun? My commentary is more properly on the specifics of such. More I went after the idea of the raygun or yellow energy

The basic raygun is a lasergun, it firing a ray of light. Now, so far as yellow energy goes, that seems more like magic to me. It is the counterpart to violet energy, which has entirely magical properties when you consider it. For instance, its ability to change both biological and non biological devices "cute," which implies that it has some sort of underlying consciousness, in addition to the fact that... well... according to Rowan, it actually does have its own consciousness, as Azer found out when he studied it. Seeing at yellow energy is the counterpart to the mystical violet energy, and it is used by people who's specialty is mixing the mystical and the technological, I find it most likely that you are right in that the energy itself is not scientifically based.

A raygun is not definately a lasergun. There are tons of things that use that term.


Look at the laser pointer, do you see the "red beam" the whole way or do you just seem a pointer?


As for violet and yellow energies on the board. If it is a real and tangable force and follows properties the study of such is science. Yes its not REAL WORLD science.

Lian wrote:I don't question the validity of Wormholes. I was questioning the "its a blackhole" I was questioning "its two blackholes linked together" That's why I posted both links to show what you were saying.


I am saying "Given suffcient Technology" is basically the same as "given the right magic words"

Yes There are some real world bits. So would be the case of We know fire exists. We know words exist. Now assuming infinite understanding of words one must make fire..

First of all, you are questioning what you proved is supposed to be possible. And saying that "'Given sufficient Technology' is basically the same as 'given the right magic words'" is ridiculous. That would be like calling someone crazy for saying they had an idea for a more efficient combustion engine. Scientific advancement will happen, this is a fact. Guessing how it will happen is science fiction. Saying "given sufficient technology" is just looking ahead. And your last part makes no sense at all. Care to clarify?[/quote]

AND not every scientific advancement WILL happen. There are plenty of things we may theorize that we will find in 100 years were "silly" much like pulp scifi seems silly or the origional HG Wells. There are plenty of things that were considered real and solid theories that we now know don't exist (such as luminous ether)

Just because you can imagine an advancement will happen does not mean it will.

Lian wrote:We have no idea we could ever do that. its entirely "Given enough development based on these premises of technology we could do it"


It is no different than deciding to fill in warp sensativity.

Actually, we could do that now, it would just require you to give a drop of blood to the machine and then wait a while.

Which is not what it does. Since it can "just detect" if a person has an ancient Gene anywhere in their body, (thus how one can have ti added with traatment)

This is the most solid thing here, so questioning this is like thinking it's ridiculous that we could every get a man on Mars. We haven't done it, we have only done something to a smaller degree.

We have sent machines to mars. We have never sent life. We believe its highly probable we could but right now there are ALOT of hurtles. It seems possible we could overcome them, even probable.. but its not Necissarily going to happen.

Lian wrote:Of course its pure science in that setting. Now it violates a bunch of our understanding of things Its a pretty extreme example of the cliche of "just use nanites for magic" that people get in scifi.

What understandings does it violate. As soon as you find out that its nanites not sorcery, it is very clear cut. If anything, this proves our point that the two are separate.

Not really, the nanites still violate laws of physics. That there are little machines and not spirits changes nothing in that story asside from themaic stuff. People still fly. People still get transformed into catgirls. There is just a twist that its in the future rather than some fantasy world.

Lian wrote:Not really, my point is it doesn't matter whether Stargates are magic teleporation rings or have complicated science sounding words. They follow the same function in a story.

More most Magic systems have a well developed "Science" its not real world but neither is say FTL. Its making cool things up for the story.

If by complicated science words, you mean words that everyone who watches sci-fi understands the basic concepts of and would are might well be possible, then you are right. If they were magic rings, that would be fine from a story point of view. It just simply wouldn't have to do with scifi anymore because it would be magic. It sounds like your point is "just because science explains stuff and is based off real world things, doesn't mean its any different than magic which has no need for such explinations."[/quote]


People know what fire, and the word word means. That doesn't mean when I say "i have the right word to start fires" that I didn't make something up.

ANd yeah I do think Magic needs explanation. You are the ones who are going by "Well it can do whatever it wants its Magic"

By that logic why don't I go with "its post Singularity Science it can do whatever it wants" YOu'd say that "that's stupid not fair and not science" I'd say "The definition of Post Singularity means it can't be explained to presingularity types which is us"

Its stupid and silly to have powers without explanation, without limits. And if I call it Science, of Magick, or Holy God powers, it doesn't change that.

Lian wrote:I am using acension not awakening. Awakening is about spells, and occult.

Accension is about philosophy, and what beliefs really mean.

Now in mage each and every mage has a focus for their effects. So lets go the setting on fire example. One might have a Psionic Paradigm. They are purely willing someone to catch fire. Another might have a Hermetic one.. they say the right words, fire happens.. a third might be a technocrat. They command nanites.. things burn. Each of them from a game perspective is rolling the same dice but each is litterally working within their Paradigm get things done.'

And for each of them they are right. That's the point of it.

Here's where the spell part comes in. They have to use their willpower to shift reality so that they can use their paradigm. Without being able to do this, they would simply say, "haha! You catch on fire." then look disappointed as nothing happens because their paradigm isn't an accurate one from the world. The paradigm part isn't the magic, it's how having a different paradigm matters, the shifting of reality.

Still a misunderstanding of how it works. Each Mage, Technocrat, Holy Man, Ninja etc As they become more enlightened comes to a greater understanding of reality they can do more. They can push their Paradigm farther impose it more.

Science

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

They are facts, they are gained through study.

Lian wrote:quot;]We are fairly certain it is. That's why there's all that effort in Scifi to create new ways to get around such things.

Fairly certain? That still means it might be done. Check and mate![/quote]

Based on quantum physics observation changes reality on the subatomic level. Assuming we could apply this properly one could observe the universe into different things. Now assume it required concentration.. that is best done through words.

That does seem like your spells to me..

We are fairly certain it won't work that way.. but it might done.

Lian wrote:No, the premise of slayers is that there are certain Extra physical laws. Much like the "if we add these laws of nature we get FTL" If one adds these laws of nature one gets fireball.

Now, I don't know what you are smoking, but the premise of Slayers Magic is actually the powerful demons grant you some of their magic power to allow you to cast black magic, or the gods do to cast white magic. I'm not sure what the source of shamanistic magic is, maybe the human soul? Anyway, things like fireball and grey wing don't pretend to be based on scientific laws. Simply saying "nuh uh! Your wrong because I said so!" wont change the facts.

No, they don't pretend to be based on REAL WORLD science.

The only reason why Magic doesn't follow the principles of Science in the real world.. IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Now looking at the definition of science i just used. Pulled from a dictionary


Fact the first human negative emotional energy is a real tangible force in the slayers Universe.

Fact the second beings are composed of this negative emotional energy, Mazoku

Mazoku were studied and certain words were shown to draw down their power. Presumably people experimented on developing the right chants, the right effects and so on.

There are specific laws that empower particular spells and so on, the author wrote up a quite detailed explanation. They aren't real world laws, but that's part of why its a fictional series.

Lian wrote:as for Futurama not being scifi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Fiction

You got on my case over and over about misusing paradigm...

I didn't say that it wasn't science fiction. I said it was scienci fiction like Disgaea was a biblical game. Disgaea is about the struggle between angels and demons, with humans stuck right in the middle. It is very loosely related to biblical themes, much as Futurama is loosely related to science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical I appologize you were misusing biblical.

Lian wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Technology

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Science


Nope doesn't need Nanites or any such thing. If he can repeat it over and over again. Its technology

You should really read the definition. The first definition there says what we are saying, and my definition of science is the scientific one, so I don't really care about what dictionary.com says for that. (If there is one time where you can use a special definition, it is when you are discussing that thing) So, once again, you provide a convenient link to prove that you're wrong. Thank you!

[/quote]


Dictionary.com has the scientific definition there. Science defines Science as the study of natural laws through observation and experimentation.


If the natural laws are different then one would get different applications of science. Different technologies.