/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15579865
>>15580340
Really depends on what's meant by "magic," as there are several competing definitions. One school of thought is just that magic is the unexplainable manifestation of the will: "It's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit." It definitionaly defies reason.
But even many old traditional depictions of magic have rules. You have to say the right magic words; you have use the right kind of wand. As soon as you impose rules, you impose reason, and you open up the subject to literal scientific inquiry. I love pic related because it depicts a universe where the rules to use magic are understood well enough that they're explicitly studied as a science.

If we seriously consider an alternate universe where magic is possible, it immediately invokes the scientific method to test it's limits. For example, if you can levitate an object by pointing at it and saying "Abra Cadabra," what are the restrictions? How much does pronunciation matter? If you get an Arab/African/Chinese/Russia/English/etc. person with varying levels of thick accents, how does that effect the efficacy of the spell? What difference does shouting vs. whispering make? What if you mouth the words instead of saying them? What if you put a sheet of cardboard between your finger and the object? Glass? Lead?
I like to joke that in the Dungeons and Dragons world, one can empirically verify whether or not a taco is a sandwich. In DnD, spells have "material components" like eye of newt, or dragon bones, or whatever. If a spell requires a sandwich, try casting it with a taco and see if it works.

But then again, if in its respective universe magic is instead called science, then maybe 'magic' is a hypothetical science that by definition doesn't work. Then 'magic' necessarily isn't real.
This whole line of thought also invokes the question of whether or not different universes with different laws of nature are even possible.