XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: fwbrown@bellsouth.net
In alt.fan.tolkien Paul S. Person wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2014 21:32:16 +0200, Taemon wrote:
>
>>On 18-5-2014 7:13, Clams Canino wrote:
>>> "Taemon" wrote in message news:lk7702
>>>
>>>>>>> Any sufficently advanced engineering is indistinguishable from magic.
>>>>>> That's not true, actually.
>>>>> Course it is, if it is sufficiently advanced.
>>>>
>>>> It can be explained, and it can be used by everyone. So, no.
>>>
>>> It's unlikely that someone who used such "magic" to your detriment would
>>> much care to give you a recipe or explaination. Therefore - it remains
>>> "magic" to the beholder.
>>
>>Well - that is really not the point.
>
> /That/ is exactly the point.
>
> This isn't about what something /is/, it is about how something
> /appears/ to a sufficiently-unadvanced individual.
Exactly right. When two things are "indistinguishable," it doesn't mean
that they're the same; it means they can't be told apart. Clarke wasn't
saying in his famous quote that technology can advance far enough to
*become* magic; he's saying that it can advance far enough beyond
someone's ability to understand it for that person to be unable to
tell the difference. The world of archaeology is plagued by the fact
that artifact forgers have advanced their technology to the point that
sometimes even the experts can't agree on whether a particular artifact
is real or fake.
If an engineer uses some hitherto-unknown principle of physics to build
an anti-gravity generator that looks like a magic wand and uses it to
levitate objects, then how could someone who is unable to understand
the physics prove that it's not magic?
--
F. Wayne Brown
Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
