Quantum Physics and Magic

[Deoridhe]

Ashley the Bee

Deoridhe

Well... the scientific method isn't about consistent, repeatable results necessarily. I mean, take what we know of carbon - it spikes at certain configurations of molecules, but it's a distribution pattern, not an all or nothing sort of thing, and the rates aren't always the same.

I'm not really aware of what you mean ^^;

But it's a side issue anyway. If magic is natural, then it should be able to be explained, wouldn't it? That is, "This spell works because __."

Do you think that's the case? If not, can you explain what you mean?

Ur... science isn't about "this works because." For example, science has been struggling with gravity for years; we have a theory, but the data to support it has holes the size of planets.... literally.

Science is, in it's roughest, the gathering of data around an idea. The aim is to disprove what you believe. Proving what you believe is categorically impossible.

My example was of measuring the combustion of carbon, something which scientists do - set fire to something and see what happens. Carbon is unusual because it combines with itself rather well at several different levels. The simplest is graphite, and they thought the most complex was diamond until they did this experiment and noticed the carbon spiking (that is, more examples of carbon did this than combined in other configurations) at 60 and 70. Via this experiment, they discovered bucky balls which are currently the basis of nanomechanics.

But an important thing to note in this study is that carbon rates SPIKED where molecules were most stable, but carbon of other configurations still existed. That is, carbon can't only combine to make graphite, diamond, and fullerene, but also combines to make things we don't bother to name because their qualities aren't distinct enough and they don't occur commonly enough. Magic may exist within these anomolies, and thus be difficult for science to measure, much less study.

I have theories for how and why the magic I do works, they're just largely non-fallsifiable, so science isn't applicable where philosophy might be.  

[Shorti Rock]

my best suggestion would be to read quantum questions. it explains that physics is a science while meta-physics is spirituality. it also explains how most physicists were mystics, but how the 2 differed. it was a slightly heavy read according to my boyfriend, but i understood it. anyway, that should explain a lot, or at least open the door for you to research more.  

[Ashley the Bee]

Deoridhe

Ashley the Bee

Deoridhe

Well... the scientific method isn't about consistent, repeatable results necessarily. I mean, take what we know of carbon - it spikes at certain configurations of molecules, but it's a distribution pattern, not an all or nothing sort of thing, and the rates aren't always the same.

I'm not really aware of what you mean ^^;

But it's a side issue anyway. If magic is natural, then it should be able to be explained, wouldn't it? That is, "This spell works because __."

Do you think that's the case? If not, can you explain what you mean?

Ur... science isn't about "this works because." For example, science has been struggling with gravity for years; we have a theory, but the data to support it has holes the size of planets.... literally.

I never said science, specifically for this reason.

You said you feel magic is natural. Natural things have causes, right?

The wind is natural, and comes from differences in air pressure.
The tide is natural, and is a result of gravity and other factors.

So, if magic is natural, it seemed as though some sort of description could be applied to it in a similar way.  

[Deoridhe]

Ashley the Bee

You said you feel magic is natural. Natural things have causes, right?

That's a rather large axiom to swallow. I'm not sure I agree that something becomes "natural" because it has a cause. Human-caused things, usually called "unnatural", have far clearer causes than nature. We know what caused roads and buildings, but trying to figure out what caused gravity or evolution has been the work of generations, and most of the results are "we see it, so we know it's there, but we don't know why". I would argue, based on the evidence, natural things don't necessarily have causes, but what we call unnatural almost certainly do, even if the cause was the actions of a human which cannot be reduced further due to the problems with comprehending human psychology.

Ashley the Bee

The wind is natural, and comes from differences in air pressure.
The tide is natural, and is a result of gravity and other factors.

So, if magic is natural, it seemed as though some sort of description could be applied to it in a similar way.

The wind is complicated enough that with some of the best computers ever, we can't predict it with any reliability. "Air pressure" is incredibly vague as a "cause". And yes, the tides are the "result" of something with flaws large enough for us to drive galaxies through, as I noted in the problems wrt gravity in my previous post.

In addition, the only way we know the things we know is because of human use of the scientific method (i.e. science), but for some reason you want to divorce one "cause" from a "result" (i.e. divorce science from the knowledge learned from it) but claim other things have irrefutable "causes" even though we really don't understand them at all and their predictive value is highly questionable in terms of one "cause" leading to a reliable "result".

From a simplistic standpoint of someone with a lay understanding of nature, what you say is most likely roughly true, but magic is about as simplistic as physics - that is to say, not at all. There is a reason people study spherical cows on single plane swings when studying physics; introduce all of the variables in what you call "nature" and it's impossible for us to actually account for all of the forces at play.

This is codified in quantum mechanics where you are literally unable to know the exact location of any electron ever.

In short, I think you want to take a simplistic view of nature and apply it to magic and then claim because this simplistic model of the world in your head marks the two as different things that they must not be related. If you want to do that, fine, but don't expect anyone with knowledge of nature, science, or magic to take you seriously.


On a side note, I was particularly interested today, though, to read about the recent discovery that all galaxies seem to have singularities in the middle of them, which might explain the swirling, and that it's nearly impossible to see our galaxies' singularity due to us being on virtually the same plane and the gas in the system between us and it. Fascinating stuff and implications re: imagery of the shadow and how the darkest things are dark because they are not see-able.  

[Ashley the Bee]

Deoridhe

Ashley the Bee

You said you feel magic is natural. Natural things have causes, right?

That's a rather large axiom to swallow. I'm not sure I agree that something becomes "natural" because it has a cause. Human-caused things, usually called "unnatural", have far clearer causes than nature. We know what caused roads and buildings, but trying to figure out what caused gravity or evolution has been the work of generations, and most of the results are "we see it, so we know it's there, but we don't know why". I would argue, based on the evidence, natural things don't necessarily have causes, but what we call unnatural almost certainly do, even if the cause was the actions of a human which cannot be reduced further due to the problems with comprehending human psychology.

Do we call things "unnatural" that are not done by humans?

Deoridhe

The wind is complicated enough that with some of the best computers ever, we can't predict it with any reliability. "Air pressure" is incredibly vague as a "cause". And yes, the tides are the "result" of something with flaws large enough for us to drive galaxies through, as I noted in the problems wrt gravity in my previous post.

In addition, the only way we know the things we know is because of human use of the scientific method (i.e. science), but for some reason you want to divorce one "cause" from a "result" (i.e. divorce science from the knowledge learned from it) but claim other things have irrefutable "causes" even though we really don't understand them at all and their predictive value is highly questionable in terms of one "cause" leading to a reliable "result".

From a simplistic standpoint of someone with a lay understanding of nature, what you say is most likely roughly true, but magic is about as simplistic as physics - that is to say, not at all. There is a reason people study spherical cows on single plane swings when studying physics; introduce all of the variables in what you call "nature" and it's impossible for us to actually account for all of the forces at play.

This is codified in quantum mechanics where you are literally unable to know the exact location of any electron ever.

Okay. I really am an engineer. I really do work with ridged body dynamics. You really don't have to go through and explain how science is imperfect.

Deoridhe

In short, I think you want to take a simplistic view of nature and apply it to magic and then claim because this simplistic model of the world in your head marks the two as different things that they must not be related. If you want to do that, fine, but don't expect anyone with knowledge of nature, science, or magic to take you seriously.

That's not what I want to do at all. I literally do not understand magic enough to ask the question I want to ask. I'm not trying to connect it to science. I'm not trying to simply it down to a sound byte. I'm trying to learn the way that you view it since you call it natural.

I don't know what natural means to you. I don't know what magic means to you. I don't know what your rituals are like. I don't know the outcome you hope to see from your efforts.

So I'm trying to ask questions to get you to explain these things, but I'm failing miserably.  

[Deoridhe]

Ashley the Bee

Do we call things "unnatural" that are not done by humans?

I've not seen the term used thus. have you?

Ashley the Bee

Okay. I really am an engineer. I really do work with ridged body dynamics. You really don't have to go through and explain how science is imperfect.

Ur, if you don't need me to explain this, then why are you typing as if nature (and thus the science based on the observation of same) is a perfect example of cause and effect?

Ashley the Bee

That's not what I want to do at all. I literally do not understand magic enough to ask the question I want to ask. I'm not trying to connect it to science. I'm not trying to simply it down to a sound byte. I'm trying to learn the way that you view it since you call it natural.

I don't know what natural means to you. I don't know what magic means to you. I don't know what your rituals are like. I don't know the outcome you hope to see from your efforts.

So I'm trying to ask questions to get you to explain these things, but I'm failing miserably.

Ur, yes. You're failing horribly at all of the same because you didn't ASK those things.

You said: "If magic is natural, then it should be able to be explained, wouldn't it? That is, "This spell works because __."

Do you think that's the case? If not, can you explain what you mean? "

In other words, your premise was that all natural things can be explained. As you now say you are an engineer, I am sincerely baffled as to why you introduced such a faulty axiom in the first place, instead of just asking questions. 8/

I'll get to the questions later, once I'm mentally adjusted to an engineer introducing those sorts of things as "facts" and then objecting to people assuming she is simplifying.  

[Ashley the Bee]

Deoridhe

Ashley the Bee

Do we call things "unnatural" that are not done by humans?

I've not seen the term used thus. have you?

No.

Deoridhe

Ur, yes. You're failing horribly at all of the same because you didn't ASK those things.

You said: "If magic is natural, then it should be able to be explained, wouldn't it? That is, "This spell works because __."

Do you think that's the case? If not, can you explain what you mean? "

In other words, your premise was that all natural things can be explained. As you now say you are an engineer, I am sincerely baffled as to why you introduced such a faulty axiom in the first place, instead of just asking questions. 8/

You didn't volunteer what you meant when you said you felt it was natural.

And, actually, most natural things have a clear effect, which, as an engineer, one takes advantage of. If one couldn't rely upon things such as gravity, F=ma, etc... then closed loop control systems wouldn't work. They do, because things have a cause and effect.

Just because we cannot model the atmosphere, doesn't mean it isn't behaving consistently and as a result of innumerable causes. It just means that we can't model everything in the world that could effect air pressure, for example.

Gravity is also understood rather well for most situations.

Taking the corner cases for these things and saying, "But science doesn't know!" is really silly.

And, finally, I actually thought I was having a conversation, not a debate. Rather than try to impress me with your comments, you could have said, "No, you don't understand, magic isn't like that, it's like this, blah blah blah."

Deoridhe

I'll get to the questions later, once I'm mentally adjusted to an engineer introducing those sorts of things as "facts" and then objecting to people assuming she is simplifying.

Don't bother. You obviously only like to talk down to me so forget it.

I'm sorry to have wasted your time.  

[patch99329]

@Deo- Could you explain what you are getting at?
I've been following this thread, but cannot find anything useful to contribute. I think I'm unsure of what points are being made.

Are you saying something along the lines that science can't prove every intricacy of X, and so it might not be able to prove magic, even though it exists?  

[Deoridhe]

patch99329

@Deo- Could you explain what you are getting at?
I've been following this thread, but cannot find anything useful to contribute. I think I'm unsure of what points are being made.

Are you saying something along the lines that science can't prove every intricacy of X, and so it might not be able to prove magic, even though it exists?

No, I got hung up on her first claim that nature is nature because we know what causes it, and thus we should know what causes magic if it's natural.

As for the "magic as a natural force" side of things, it really depends on the form. You have the really kind of simplistic stuff, like energy work, auras, and Reiki, which can simply be attributed to energy fields which would be intrinsic to all living things (and with a stretch to non-living as well).

There is a decent amount of evidence that belief shapes the world - perhaps not as directly as in fiction, but in terms of health, relationships, and sometimes even shifts in chance, the effect of peoples' beliefs is everywhere. One of the more interesting studies of this is the study of bias, where people literally cannot see reality for the ideas of what reality should be in their mind.

The type of magic I do seems to be on par with the philosophical/psychological (psyche psychological - soul study) concept of archetypes which underpin reality. So, invoking fehu can also increase metabolic heat and keep me warmer when it's cold, or a judicious application of a thurisaz/ansuz can be used to push through physical drains. Those are easy to explain as a form of positive imaging (which is common in psychology and is usually dismissed by the scientific side of psychology as a placebo effect). Harder to explain are trials where such things effect outside things (like the trial with the fish I've mentioned a few times with my fertility bindrune).

Along those lines, some studies have been done with Reiki-like energy and plants; I'm still hunting for the specifics, though. From what my friend explained to me, the structure of the study seemed sound (control, experimental, and control-experimental; the first were plants watered as all of them were, the second were the ones that trained energy workers working on the plants, and third that had untrained people making gestures in front of the plants in case something was introduced by the presence of people).

Of course, when it really comes down to it, people don't understand chi or the energy used in Western-style energy work in any way, and there's certainly a bunch of chicanery around some newage sales, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't valuable and eventually understandable stuff going on.

On the more neurological side of things, there was an interesting speech given by a neuroanatomist, Jill Bolte Taylor, when she had a stroke. It talks about the awareness she had while her left brain was shut down, which seems very like the sort of deliberately chosen experiences I have had with a wide variety of people seeking "magic" in one form or another. This raises some interesting questions, though of course gives no answers and may never, given the nature of the questions. In the end, the dichotomy of question and answer may inherently block an actual understanding of what's going on.  

[Operation Shoestring]

So thinking happy thoughts improves the quality of water?

I'm pretty sure Quantum Entanglement doesn't work like that.


Since we're on this subject, I have this quote I want your opinions on.

geodesic42

I'm gonna give my standard song and dance:

Let's say A is supernatural. It interacts with B, which is something natural. Because B is natural, we can study the interaction between A and B, meaning we can indirectly probe A using B. A is thus placed within the realm of science and cannot, therefore, be supernatural.

The only real way to make something supernatural is to completely isolate it from the natural world, in which case it has nothing to do with us. A lot of things in religion are presumed supernatural and yet we allow them to interact with us. For example, the soul is generally presumed to either affect or be affected by our thoughts and emotions and, moreover, preserve our consciousness after the rest of our physical being dies. We know thought is directly correlated with neural activity, which ultimately reduces to electrodynamics, chemistry, and, to the ultimate precision, quantum electrodynamics (which fails to be practicable when studying the dynamics of a massive number of electrons and synapses, but provides motivation to recognize that our brains are fundamentally constrained by E&M). If the soul preserves our consciousness, etc, then it must necessarily interact in a way consistent with E&M. In particular, if our minds are affected by the soul, the resulting electromagnetic phenomena could be observed and the physics of the soul could be studied. It would thus have to be within the realm of science.

The only argument that would allow religions to be preserved as they are is enforcing the omnipotence of God. Specifically, if God trumps logic, God can make two logically mutually exclusive conditions be simultaneously satisfied, in which case he/she/it could interact with the world in a causal way without, somehow, making it perceivable. I feel this would be grasping at straws, though. If you can play the "logic doesn't apply" card, nothing can be proved, disproved, or validly argued.

 

[CuAnnan]

Operation Shoestring

So thinking happy thoughts improves the quality of water?

I'm pretty sure Quantum Entanglement doesn't work like that.

That filthy skepticism is why your water tastes horrible.

geodesic42

I'm gonna give my standard song and dance:

1) Let's say A is supernatural.
2) It interacts with B, which is something natural.
3) Because B is natural, we can study the interaction between A and B
4) meaning we can indirectly probe A using B.
5) A is thus placed within the realm of science and cannot, therefore, be supernatural.

I would like to see him prove point 3, furthermore, I would like to see him prove points 4 and 5. 3 really strikes me as a non sequitor.

geodesic42

We know thought is directly correlated with neural activity, which ultimately reduces to electrodynamics, chemistry, and, to the ultimate precision, quantum electrodynamics (which fails to be practicable when studying the dynamics of a massive number of electrons and synapses, but provides motivation to recognize that our brains are fundamentally constrained by E&M).

He forgot Chaos Theory.
The brain is a chaotic system.
It is also a self referential system, which sticks it into Goedel's frame of reference (just an interesting side note).

geodesic42

If the soul preserves our consciousness, etc, then it must necessarily interact in a way consistent with E&M.

Non-sequitor.
Conciousness and thought have not been proven by his statement to be the same thing.  

[Deoridhe]

Operation Shoestring

So thinking happy thoughts improves the quality of water?

I'm pretty sure Quantum Entanglement doesn't work like that.

Ur.... non sequitor?  

[Ashley the Bee]

Deoridhe

Operation Shoestring

So thinking happy thoughts improves the quality of water?

I'm pretty sure Quantum Entanglement doesn't work like that.

Ur.... non sequitor?

So, the website says:

Aquamantra Website

Aquamantra was inspired by a 2004 film, “What the Bleep Do We Know?!” This Movie discussed the underlying quantum mechanics of our world. It showed how reality is changed with every thought. Dr. Masaru Emoto, who was featured in the film, wrote a book called “Hidden Messages in Water,” he showed us the basic principles of quantum theory, whereby the molecular structure of water was changed by a Zen Buddhist monk’s thought. Based on this premise, Aquamantra uses the design on its labels to affect the molecular structure of California natural spring water to make it more refreshing and wholesome to drink.

So, perhaps I don't understand what you mean, but, given the website suggests that happy thoughts change water on a quantum level to make it "better", doesn't her comment fit?  

[Deoridhe]

Ashley the Bee

Deoridhe

Operation Shoestring

So thinking happy thoughts improves the quality of water?

I'm pretty sure Quantum Entanglement doesn't work like that.

Ur.... non sequitor?

So, the website says:

Aquamantra Website

Aquamantra was inspired by a 2004 film, “What the Bleep Do We Know?!” This Movie discussed the underlying quantum mechanics of our world. It showed how reality is changed with every thought. Dr. Masaru Emoto, who was featured in the film, wrote a book called “Hidden Messages in Water,” he showed us the basic principles of quantum theory, whereby the molecular structure of water was changed by a Zen Buddhist monk’s thought. Based on this premise, Aquamantra uses the design on its labels to affect the molecular structure of California natural spring water to make it more refreshing and wholesome to drink.

So, perhaps I don't understand what you mean, but, given the website suggests that happy thoughts change water on a quantum level to make it "better", doesn't her comment fit?

Urm... not the study I was referencing. 8/

The study I was referencing was of a technique of Chi-manipulation used on plants. If they are altering the molecular structure of water, that should be fairly easy to check. Was it?  

[Ashley the Bee]

Deoridhe

Urm... not the study I was referencing. 8/

Okay, but it seems like the website I quoted was the starting point for OS's comment?

Deoridhe

The study I was referencing was of a technique of Chi-manipulation used on plants.

Okay.

Deoridhe

If they are altering the molecular structure of water, that should be fairly easy to check. Was it?

Well, the results that were shown on the website, and the results of Masaru Emotos' research, suggests that ice crystals from water with "bad" emotions aren't as intricate(?) as those with "good" emotions.

Masaru Emoto: Messages from Water

The movie (What the Bleep Do We Know) explained that the changes were a result of the human who wrote the message on the bottle interacting with the quantum structure of of the water and influencing it to go a certain way. That is, "good" thoughts would produce "good" ice crystals, where "bad" thoughts produce "bad" crystals.