While I fully agree, I thought the distinction was unbreakable rules.
The laws of physics can’t be broken, even, under any circumstances, everywhere, at any time.
Whereas magic is more like there is an exception to every rule kind of deal. It’s far more like software, as in it’s mostly fully logically consistent except for random spots where devs took some shortcuts to make life easier.
I think the “exception to every rule” part is really dependent on which type of magic the writer is using. Many writers do establish hard rules for their magic. In those cases, it’s less “magic is the exception” and more “magic is engrained into the laws of physics.”
I don’t think magic is objective; I think it is in the eye of the beholder.
If the audience don’t understand it, or can be distracted from seeing the truth of it, it’s magic or a miracle or whatever to them.
And the magician - if they know what they’re doing - can wield power over the rubes.
So before you understand - say, magnetism - better, lodestones can be seen as magical or heaven-sent.
There’ll be physical phenomena today like ‘spooky action at a distance’ or something where even quite learned observers might not 100% know the laws of physics. Some exploit of that can appear as magical until the laws are figured out and well communicated.
If it turns out that the underlying laws are stochastic rather than deterministic, then there’s always going to be some grey areas i think.
While I fully agree, I thought the distinction was unbreakable rules.
The laws of physics can’t be broken, even, under any circumstances, everywhere, at any time.
Whereas magic is more like there is an exception to every rule kind of deal. It’s far more like software, as in it’s mostly fully logically consistent except for random spots where devs took some shortcuts to make life easier.
I think the “exception to every rule” part is really dependent on which type of magic the writer is using. Many writers do establish hard rules for their magic. In those cases, it’s less “magic is the exception” and more “magic is engrained into the laws of physics.”
Hard magic systems are my favourites, usually. The limitations are more interesting than the possibilities.
Have you read Ra?
I don’t think magic is objective; I think it is in the eye of the beholder.
If the audience don’t understand it, or can be distracted from seeing the truth of it, it’s magic or a miracle or whatever to them. And the magician - if they know what they’re doing - can wield power over the rubes.
So before you understand - say, magnetism - better, lodestones can be seen as magical or heaven-sent.
There’ll be physical phenomena today like ‘spooky action at a distance’ or something where even quite learned observers might not 100% know the laws of physics. Some exploit of that can appear as magical until the laws are figured out and well communicated.
If it turns out that the underlying laws are stochastic rather than deterministic, then there’s always going to be some grey areas i think.