Do you think it would be possible for technology to invent magic?
If technology is involved, then it'd be science not magic.
I don't think so. We may have technology that is high-tier enough that it would appear to be magic. True magic would be something more like anti-physics from Dr. Who.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>>51247028
Tecnology is already magic, for most of the people.
They know the magic word or the magic ritual, and then voilà, images move on a screen, or suddenly the scene they are looking at is stored on a bundle of plastic, metal and silicate.
I'm studying engineering, and there are still many technologies that I don't know the exact way they work.
I figure your average joe has no idea about how pressing a button on a remote makes moving images appear on his tv.
>>51247028
If it isn't supernatural it isn't magic. Science is the understanding of nature, supernatural things are beyond nature. That is why scientists ignore god.
>>51247028
only in virtual reality
Science, not magic. But I do believe in 50 years we'll be able to do some pretty unbelievable shit.
We already did
Just nothing that breaks thermodynamics kthx
>>51247028
Highly advanced technology is already close to magic, and I think especially computers are for most people.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
>>51247239
>That is why scientists ignore god.
"Scientists" are not one collective being. Many great scientists are/were religious. (And many great ones are/were not.)
>>51247621
If your a scientist you can't make any speculation about god period. God is by definition supernatural, including him in science is unscientific. If you mention god in a theory then any scientist must disregard it.
Magic is just science we dont understand yet.
>>51248755
You can still be religious and a scientist. You don't have to include God in your theories for you to be religious.
>>51247239
There's nothing to ignore unless you have evidence to the contrary? No? Okay then.
>>51248755
If you're a scientist, you can make speculation all day long, but there's no way to get empirical evidence on the matter. Science focuses on that which can be observed, and supernatural entities, God or otherwise, are beyond the scope of that. If such a supernatural entity were to become observable, they would immediately cease being supernatural and thus become a part of our natural world.
The same goes for the topic of this thread. If magic were to suddenly start existing, it wouldn't be "magic" as we think of it now. It would simply be science, which we could leverage into technology.
Define "magic."
I would say that the whole idea of supernatural things is incoherent. If something exists, it is natural. If magic exists, it's just a particularly useful bit of physics. It is not something separate from the rest of physics. It is not special.
The difference between magic and science is just aesthetic.
>>51247621
>Many great scientists are/were religious.
These days? Not really. On the whole, scientists are not religious at all. There are some religious scientists, but they're a small minority.
If magic were discovered, scientists would science the shit out of magic.
Like, let's say to cast a fire spell you need to wave a wand in a small circle and chant "Fire Fire Alakazam!" What's to stop us now from programming a robotic arm to do the waving motion and playing back a recording over a speaker chanting "Fire Fire Alakazam"?
All of a sudden you opened the door to creating perpetual energy because the fire could be harnessed to generate enough energy to power itself and other things.
>>51249060
I do. There's no such thing as free will. We're merely responding to events that happen around us.
>>51247075
>1st series g5
worst computer ever made
>>51247063
