Clarke's First Law:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Clarke's Second Law:

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Clarke's Third Law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

For more information about the man behind these quotes, see Arthur C. Clarke.

The third law is definitely a favorite, as is I think to some the turn around that magic when advanced enough is indistinguishable from technology.

The reason for this I think is because they are in fact on a level the same thing. Each is in effect taking advantage of the way the universe works to achieve a purpose...the simplest of technology is using a rock to hit something harder...the simplest of magic likely to cause fright (I'd say if someone is wielding a rock menacingly I'm likely to be a hair frightened). They differ at the root only in the methodology, necessarily, and requirements, frequently.

So both progress, science builds compasses, magic knows the way. Science builds cities, magic founds nations. Science weaves carbon into nanotubes, magic weaves robes of power. Science crosses the stars, magic crosses the planes of reality. What seemed at first to be a line ever shifts and blurs.

If technology and magic share a universe, which is of witch (typo retained for punness)? Are our precious laws of physics the be all and end all, magic a subset there of, merely shifting the states in the structure? Or is magic the true base, the meta reality the greater set? Do we need a new term? It wouldn't be the first time, for we humans to have to ask that question.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.