Category theory & magic

[Anonymous No.10983382]

As a quick crash course, magic exists, and because it does, so too does magic that cancels magic. We are the magical race whose magical ability is to instinctively banish magic. Either we lost the rest of our magic with some huge cataclysm, or we chose to seal it (literally) once and for all, or we just didn't have strong secondary magic to begin with. In any case, the world we exist in now is one that will not allow magic to exist because of our fears. Contrarily, if magic doesn't exist, then overcoming our fear of it would have no effect. That brings you up to date on all my research into all models of magic.

There have been tales of shapeshifting throughout human history. From my analysis, it comes in two primary forms: Transfiguration and transformation. The former deals with complex surfaces, vision, spacial sense and advanced detail. The latter deals with intuition and composition, and is a much simpler thing.

As /sci/entists, you're probably not all that afraid of magic in the first place. However, the psychic pressure you no doubt emit if magic is assumed to exist is notable regardless. Even if you aren't filled with dread, these concepts will likely generate a small amount of discomfort to consider, even on a purely conceptual level. I'll post my hypothesis momentarily.

My proposal is that we can use category theory to advance the study and categorization of magic. If fear limits us (and it does) then we can design a system of magic that a maximal amount of people find actionable and safe. Thus far, people seem to be minimally afraid of magic so long as that magic affects only the mind. This allows practitioners to have deeply strange paranormal experiences, but because nobody is forced to believe anything anyone else has experienced, it does not cause waves of fear to ripple across the population. Physical magic has been reported by all practitioners that I've come across as "excessively difficult," for comparison.

>cont. to hypothesis

[Anonymous No.10983384]

Since the use of magic to forcefully transfigure another is a source of great apprehension, I'm proposing that we consider transformation to never occur without consent. This allows for healing magic without risking advanced mages turning everyone into furniture. That's my hypothesis. You test it by feeling something in response to it. Either you're an intellectual and can consider this purely conceptually without adverse magical reaction of an unconscious nature, or you're a brainlet and need to let the big brain work out safe magic for you.


If you can't immediately think of two uses for a proliferation of physical magic, please leave.

[Anonymous No.10984760]

Well shit I thought you guys would jump at a chance to employ category theory.

[Anonymous No.10984897]

Lay off the weed.

[Anonymous No.10985593]

The difference between omnipotence and magic is ubiquity. Sorry guys, the problem domain I was considering doesn't generalize the way I thought it might. You can ignore this thread.

[Anonymous No.10985598]

>>10983382

[Anonymous No.10986588]

>>10984760
Basically what it comes down to is that for any two types of magic to be distinct in this manner, they would each need to be antidotes for the other. If I can't find a way to do that with any two types of magic then the concept will remain stuck in the "too dangerous due to edge case explosion" category.


Further analysis of the "two uses" rule made me realize that any use of physical magic that could replace an industrial process would just push the world back towards local economies.

[Hyperalchemist No.10988285]

>"molten magic"