Magic and Physics

[Erik Vale]

Skipping to the end.

In the Mealstorm system, magic is rated by levels of probability requiring more rolls of increasing difficulty the more unlikely it is.

For example, doing the impossible [say conjuring a fireball] has [at best] a 1/2^10% chance, assuming you have stats which would mean you are effectively all knowing and have enough willpower to resist any torture. [5 will rolls at -50, 5 knowledge rolls at -50], and take a huge amount of energy from the mage, even if he's non-successful, and could well result in his death.

However, having circumstance fall a coconut on a combatents head while he fights under a palm tree, easy as heck and is barely draining at all.


Thus, assuming you keep yourself to the possible possibilities in your magic, which is safer and easier, the magic system is entirely within physics, for it's all probability manipulation.

[Mr. Mask]

Um.... Full Metal Alchemist?

[AMFV]

Now, you want to introduce magic that can manipulate probability? Then you can do stuff like that - exactly the right stuff happens for that pound of dirt to spontaneously fuse, sure. But you are in fact violating natural law with that magic. Which is why I say, it would be much better to say 'what properties of physics do I want to preserve' rather than 'how do I make a fully realistic magic system?'

I'm curious as to why you would say that manipulating the probability of an event occurring is violating natural law, when it is clearly not. For example my keyboard has a non-zero possibility of each key that I'm typing being hit, and as I type them I alter that probability to a perfect chance of having occurred. We do things that manipulate the probability of large systems all the time, literally all the time, if you account for our affects on a large scale or our affects in terms of the butterfly affect, controlling that sort of relationship isn't unrealistic or impossible, just something we have yet to be able to attain. Just because technology or magical systems for something do not exist at this time don't make them impossible.

Furthermore I think you're applying the laws of nature thing, to things that are not actually laws, but rather theorems, which have exceptions. The laws generally do not, it's a more complex system. But again we are always manipulating the probability that something will occur, all of the time, sometimes without even our knowledge. All things factor into a probability, and being able to access a system of magic that makes those sort of probabilities comprehensible is possibly enough to manipulate them. Adding in a force that is aware of the effects of various things with the ability to alter them, could conceivably create a realized system of magic in line with natural laws.

Again if something can happen in the real world, it would work under my system, things can spontaneously explode, so creating a fireball is possible. But things can't spring into existence, so creating or destroying matter is not. Conservation of momentum is preserved for all things, so that if you pick something up using magic, there is a force directed downwards or outwards to reflect that. There is no reason why such a system could not exist in the real world. In fact we've created machines that do many of those things. There are explosives, there are grain explosions, human beings have manipulated the probability simply by interacting with them. I'm not sure why you are arguing this is impossible when it in fact happens, things that happen are possible.

Skipping to the end.

In the Mealstorm system, magic is rated by levels of probability requiring more rolls of increasing difficulty the more unlikely it is.

For example, doing the impossible [say conjuring a fireball] has [at best] a 1/2^10% chance, assuming you have stats which would mean you are effectively all knowing and have enough willpower to resist any torture. [5 will rolls at -50, 5 knowledge rolls at -50], and take a huge amount of energy from the mage, even if he's non-successful, and could well result in his death.

However, having circumstance fall a coconut on a combatents head while he fights under a palm tree, easy as heck and is barely draining at all.


Thus, assuming you keep yourself to the possible possibilities in your magic, which is safer and easier, the magic system is entirely within physics, for it's all probability manipulation.

This is almost exactly what I am looking for, thanks!

[Erik Vale]

This is almost exactly what I am looking for, thanks!

Glad to help.
And it'll have wizards take up the motto: "The easier it is, the less likely they'll find you." or some such...
I wonder what that is in latin...
Hmm, "Facilius est facere, ut minus sint tibi" would work for a motto, might want to fiddle with the meaning a little.

Or to steal from someone else, Si deus est proprie officium nemo certus officium fecit. [If god does his job properly, no one is sure he has done his job.]


I'm not sure the book is still in print if you wish to look at the actual system, the copy I have is so old it's pages have changed colour and it's falling apart from age, however I could detail the important parts if you'd like [grading, how it decides it's penalties/why the penalties are those numbers etc]

[NichG]

I'm curious as to why you would say that manipulating the probability of an event occurring is violating natural law, when it is clearly not. For example my keyboard has a non-zero possibility of each key that I'm typing being hit, and as I type them I alter that probability to a perfect chance of having occurred. We do things that manipulate the probability of large systems all the time, literally all the time, if you account for our affects on a large scale or our affects in terms of the butterfly affect, controlling that sort of relationship isn't unrealistic or impossible, just something we have yet to be able to attain. Just because technology or magical systems for something do not exist at this time don't make them impossible.

Its all about the entropy cost and the ability to exert pressure on events with the required precision. In a chaotic system, the amount of precision I need to have in order to achieve a specific 'butterfly effect' result increases exponentially with time - this is actually the mathematical definition of chaos (and its characterized by the system's Lyapunov exponent).

So what this means is that, if e.g. targeting a specific coordinate in phase space 1 second from now requires I control the system to within 1mm, then targeting it 2 seconds from now might require 0.1mm precision, and 10 seconds would then require precision down to 0.1 picometers. This is roughly 10 times the radius of a proton. So that basically means you can't use subtle manipulations over very long times to build up a lot of leverage.

So okay, you just want something to happen 'now'. Well, the problem is that many of the sorts of outcomes that seem like fair game for magic (make something blow up) are going to be highly improbable. By highly improbable I don't mean like a 1 in a million chance, I mean numbers like 10^(-10^20). If we take the phase space of the system and now divide it up into regions, we can roughly say that the fraction of the feasible phase space that leads to the desired outcome (in the near-future since we can't go to very long times anyhow) is proportional to the probability of that outcome. The upside is that we may have a lot of particles to play with, which expands the volume of the phase space, but the downside is that if we want to achieve some sort of 'extensive' effect (e.g. making all the dirt in a lump blow up) then the improbability also scales exactly the same way as the phase space volume increases.

The end result is that, again, we would need basically unattainable precision in order to pick out very unlikely possibilities - which most things are.

If you have a small magnet, can you alter a coin flip so that its always heads? Probably. Can you make a pound of dirt suddenly undergo nuclear fusion and blow up? No, not really, no matter how good your computers are or even how good your manipulators are, you're easily going to be under the uncertainty limit.

Your best bet for this sort of probability manipulation would be space-like trajectories through wormholes using Novikov's Self-Consistency Principle to force unlikely events to occur as they are the only self-consistent ones, but the problem is that iirc wormholes have an energy singularity when they go from time-like trajectories to space-like trajectories, so actually preparing these things isn't feasible in our understanding of physics.

Furthermore I think you're applying the laws of nature thing, to things that are not actually laws, but rather theorems, which have exceptions. The laws generally do not, it's a more complex system. But again we are always manipulating the probability that something will occur, all of the time, sometimes without even our knowledge. All things factor into a probability, and being able to access a system of magic that makes those sort of probabilities comprehensible is possibly enough to manipulate them. Adding in a force that is aware of the effects of various things with the ability to alter them, could conceivably create a realized system of magic in line with natural laws.

I've actually written a (computer) game where the gimmick is basically 'you have full knowledge of the deterministic outcome of the forces you exert on your character', where you're bouncing around and trying to get to a goal. You can do some crazy trajectories that get you there, but the phase space is still still fairly tame.

Compare this with, e.g., stuff that people usually do in computational chemistry, where they're trying to encourage rare reactions to go forward by adding biases to the system and then backing out the true probabilities by taking into account how hard it would be to obtain those biases from random fluctuations. State of there art there is maybe 10^(-30) to 10^(-60) range, and there we're basically talking about forces that you couldn't really exert in real life - it only works because its a computer program and you have perfect control of every force experienced by every particle, all the time. But you basically can't actually do that in real life - you can't push precisely on every particle in a pound of dirt, because those forces have to originate from somewhere.

And of course, 'make a pound of dirt explode' or 'make a rock suddenly fly forward and strike someone' is in the 10^(-10^24) range - every particle (of which there are ~10^24 in a pound of dirt) has to simultaneously do the exact right thing to make the event happen. At that point, you might as well just give all your enemies an aneurysm, since its a much more probable event.

Again if something can happen in the real world, it would work under my system, things can spontaneously explode, so creating a fireball is possible. But things can't spring into existence, so creating or destroying matter is not. Conservation of momentum is preserved for all things, so that if you pick something up using magic, there is a force directed downwards or outwards to reflect that. There is no reason why such a system could not exist in the real world. In fact we've created machines that do many of those things. There are explosives, there are grain explosions, human beings have manipulated the probability simply by interacting with them. I'm not sure why you are arguing this is impossible when it in fact happens, things that happen are possible.

You're arguing against using machines for it though. Thats the real problem. You're saying 'because a machine can do it, its okay for it to happen without a machine'. But machines are actually the way that natural law is manipulated so that things happen. Forces don't just come out of nowhere - they have to be applied. There are certain limits on how those forces can be generated and directed. The result is, if you want to make a device that, say, ionizes a gas, its going to do so by projecting energy into a space such that, statistically, the electrons are more likely to spend time off the atoms than on the atoms.

Its not just going to say 'let all the electrons spontaneously decide to jump off their atoms'.

Its conceptually a lot harder to break the laws of probability than the laws of physics. I can suggest quite a few different plausible ways around the lightspeed limit, for example, but its quite another thing to devise a way to beat thermodynamics. If you tell me 'I have a machine that can let me travel back in time' or 'I have a machine that produces an antigravity field' I would give it far more credence than if you tell me 'I have a machine that reduces the entropy of the universe on average'.

Edit:

Anyhow, this is all moot if you don't actually care for a 'perfectly realistic' magic system. Its much easier to make a magic system that satisfies, e.g., 3 or 4 things about the real world that have the most dire consequences than it is to make something that could 'actually exist'.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Its conceptually a lot harder to break the laws of probability than the laws of physics. I can suggest quite a few different plausible ways around the lightspeed limit, for example, but its quite another thing to devise a way to beat thermodynamics. If you tell me 'I have a machine that can let me travel back in time' or 'I have a machine that produces an antigravity field' I would give it far more credence than if you tell me 'I have a machine that reduces the entropy of the universe on average'.

I'd hope nobody would believe that! The universe is a big place. I'd also like to not be around a machine that could decrease the average entropy of the universe.

Anyhow, this is all moot if you don't actually care for a 'perfectly realistic' magic system. Its much easier to make a magic system that satisfies, e.g., 3 or 4 things about the real world that have the most dire consequences than it is to make something that could 'actually exist'.

That's the same thing that I figured, more or less. Toss out some weird exception to the 'rules', and worry about how it interacts with the most seriously consequential tenets of physics rather than is consistent with absolutely every principle.

[AMFV]

Its all about the entropy cost and the ability to exert pressure on events with the required precision. In a chaotic system, the amount of precision I need to have in order to achieve a specific 'butterfly effect' result increases exponentially with time - this is actually the mathematical definition of chaos (and its characterized by the system's Lyapunov exponent).

So what this means is that, if e.g. targeting a specific coordinate in phase space 1 second from now requires I control the system to within 1mm, then targeting it 2 seconds from now might require 0.1mm precision, and 10 seconds would then require precision down to 0.1 picometers. This is roughly 10 times the radius of a proton. So that basically means you can't use subtle manipulations over very long times to build up a lot of leverage.

Well you're arguing that something is impossible based on the grounds that none of our current computation systems are capable of that level of precision. That seems like that's not really a related argument. The level of precision attainable in a system is not limited by our current ability to manipulate things. Ergo it's not an unrealistic thing to assume that things could be so manipulated with a more advanced system.

So okay, you just want something to happen 'now'. Well, the problem is that many of the sorts of outcomes that seem like fair game for magic (make something blow up) are going to be highly improbable. By highly improbable I don't mean like a 1 in a million chance, I mean numbers like 10^(-10^20). If we take the phase space of the system and now divide it up into regions, we can roughly say that the fraction of the feasible phase space that leads to the desired outcome (in the near-future since we can't go to very long times anyhow) is proportional to the probability of that outcome. The upside is that we may have a lot of particles to play with, which expands the volume of the phase space, but the downside is that if we want to achieve some sort of 'extensive' effect (e.g. making all the dirt in a lump blow up) then the improbability also scales exactly the same way as the phase space volume increases.

So again your main argument is that it's not feasible for humans in the current spectrum, which is not something I'm arguing for, I'm arguing that the system is possible. Do you disagree that with sufficient computational power such a system could exist? Since the crux of your argument seems to rest on our inability to do this rather than on any physical law that would prevent it.

The end result is that, again, we would need basically unattainable precision in order to pick out very unlikely possibilities - which most things are.

Unattainable currently, with our technology, but not necessarily with magic, you're making an argument against fictional technology based on the fact that current technology can't replicate it, that's an argument that's not exactly sound.

You can say "certain things are impossible", but "we have never built a system that can manage the degree of control to manage that" is not at all equivalent, not on any grounds. You are arguing that the control is impossible, but there is no reasoning that would rule that the degree of control is impossible in all situations with any technology.

If you have a small magnet, can you alter a coin flip so that its always heads? Probably. Can you make a pound of dirt suddenly undergo nuclear fusion and blow up? No, not really, no matter how good your computers are or even how good your manipulators are, you're easily going to be under the uncertainty limit.

My computers can be as good as I want them to be, because I'm inventing them, it's magic. I can have computers that are capable of almost impossible things, just not impossible things, you're arguing based on our current technology, which has no bearing on this particular argument.

Your best bet for this sort of probability manipulation would be space-like trajectories through wormholes using Novikov's Self-Consistency Principle to force unlikely events to occur as they are the only self-consistent ones, but the problem is that iirc wormholes have an energy singularity when they go from time-like trajectories to space-like trajectories, so actually preparing these things isn't feasible in our understanding of physics.

Well the you could theoretically have solved that particular problem, since our understanding isn't the limiting factor, any more than it would be in Star Trek, it's not a violation of a law, just something we see as impossible or improbable with current technology. I'm not sure why you continue to identify these things as synonymous, they aren't. You can do extremely improbable things with the right equipment, without violating natural laws as they exist. The problem is that you are conflating things that are improbable with things that are impossible.

I've actually written a (computer) game where the gimmick is basically 'you have full knowledge of the deterministic outcome of the forces you exert on your character', where you're bouncing around and trying to get to a goal. You can do some crazy trajectories that get you there, but the phase space is still still fairly tame.

That sounds pretty interesting, although difficult, full knowledge != full manipulation though, or the same degree of manipulation that might be possible in a future system.

Compare this with, e.g., stuff that people usually do in computational chemistry, where they're trying to encourage rare reactions to go forward by adding biases to the system and then backing out the true probabilities by taking into account how hard it would be to obtain those biases from random fluctuations. State of there art there is maybe 10^(-30) to 10^(-60) range, and there we're basically talking about forces that you couldn't really exert in real life - it only works because its a computer program and you have perfect control of every force experienced by every particle, all the time. But you basically can't actually do that in real life - you can't push precisely on every particle in a pound of dirt, because those forces have to originate from somewhere.

We can't push precisely on every particle in a pound of dirt, because we have created no system that can handle it. But are you arguing that it is impossible to push precisely on every particle in a pound of dirt? Because I would argue that it isn't. You're arguing based on our inability to do things that they are impossible. In fact while I'm not familiar with computational chemistry, the fact that these people are able to get grants and funding means that the community at large doesn't believe that these things will be impossible.

And of course, 'make a pound of dirt explode' or 'make a rock suddenly fly forward and strike someone' is in the 10^(-10^24) range - every particle (of which there are ~10^24 in a pound of dirt) has to simultaneously do the exact right thing to make the event happen. At that point, you might as well just give all your enemies an aneurysm, since its a much more probable event.

Again it's incredibly unlikely, but for some reason you continue to conflate "unlikely" with "impossible" even an event that is nearly impossible, can still happen with the natural laws in place without violating our understanding of the laws of physics, we aren't limited by our understanding in the construction of the system, only by what is theoretically possible.

You're arguing against using machines for it though. Thats the real problem. You're saying 'because a machine can do it, its okay for it to happen without a machine'. But machines are actually the way that natural law is manipulated so that things happen. Forces don't just come out of nowhere - they have to be applied. There are certain limits on how those forces can be generated and directed. The result is, if you want to make a device that, say, ionizes a gas, its going to do so by projecting energy into a space such that, statistically, the electrons are more likely to spend time off the atoms than on the atoms.

Well obviously, we're going to have to add something to what is existing to create this scenario, it might be tantamount to machines, but you're arguing that because you don't understand a particular process that it cannot happen, which is a non sequitur at best. Magic or arcane wrote, could theoretically manipulate the butterfly effect or the like, probability manipulation is certainly not impossible, and even you've admitted that, you just suggested that it was now impossible because we can't do it, which isn't exactly a reasonable conclusion to make.

Its not just going to say 'let all the electrons spontaneously decide to jump off their atoms'.

Its conceptually a lot harder to break the laws of probability than the laws of physics. I can suggest quite a few different plausible ways around the lightspeed limit, for example, but its quite another thing to devise a way to beat thermodynamics. If you tell me 'I have a machine that can let me travel back in time' or 'I have a machine that produces an antigravity field' I would give it far more credence than if you tell me 'I have a machine that reduces the entropy of the universe on average'.'

Well you could still say, I tap into a machine that alters probabilities on a small scale, such a machine could exist. Furthermore, manipulating probability being possible is certainly a thing, as we've pointed out the chaos effect is a real thing, that can cause effects over a large area, if you have a good enough predictive model, you could theoretically control the chaos effect and create the results that you desire.

You still wouldn't be able to do anything that would be physically impossible however, just things that are improbable or unlikely.

Edit:

Anyhow, this is all moot if you don't actually care for a 'perfectly realistic' magic system. Its much easier to make a magic system that satisfies, e.g., 3 or 4 things about the real world that have the most dire consequences than it is to make something that could 'actually exist'.

I'm not sure why you're conflating things that we can't do now with things that are impossible. Because they're aren't necessarily the same. At least not to my thinking.

I'd hope nobody would believe that! The universe is a big place. I'd also like to not be around a machine that could decrease the average entropy of the universe.

But we don't have to decrease the entropy over the entire universe. Furthermore for the entropy of the universe to be a problem the universe has to be a closed system, and that could really go either way, particularly in a fantasy setting. All we have to do is alter probability in small ways, we could even preserve entropy by simultaneously increasing randomness in other locations, we just need a system capable of that, and magic could certainly manage it.

[NichG]

I'm not arguing that its infeasible given our current computational ability. I'm arguing its unfeasible given the lower-bound on precision for the manipulation of matter given by the uncertainty principle. Basically, there are hard bounds on how much leverage you can get by running predictions on a system to find the right place to 'push' in order to get it to do an improbable thing. Basically, I'm not arguing its 'hard' to push precisely on every particle in a pound of dirt to attain fusion. I'm arguing it is provably impossible given quantum mechanical uncertainty bounds.

Manipulate a coin toss or a dice roll? Sure. But if you want to explode a pound of dirt, look elsewhere.

Incidentally, there are actually hard limits on computation. Logic operations basically compress the phase space, which costs a certain lower-bound amount of entropy to do. It's another limit to keep in mind if you really want a 'could actually exist in the real world' system.

But this kind of stuff is why I'm saying, don't bother for a 'perfectly realistic' system. There are a lot of bounds in physics, thermodynamics, information theory, etc that will restrict your system in ways that are fairly tricky to take into account, much less actually apply during a game session. Most of these limits only really come into play if you try to force things in ways that they don't naturally go, like trying to achieve fusion in a lump of material or causing a rock to spontaneously jump to the left. Its much easier to cause the rock to fuse by compressing it and heating it to a billion degrees.

But if you just say, in my universe there's the Reizsh Interaction that catalyzes fusion, thats good enough for tabletop gaming.

[AMFV]

[QUOTE=NichG;16723459]I'm not arguing that its infeasible given our current computational ability. I'm arguing its unfeasible given the lower-bound on precision for the manipulation of matter given by the uncertainty principle. Basically, there are hard bounds on how much leverage you can get by running predictions on a system to find the right place to 'push' in order to get it to do an improbable thing. Basically, I'm not arguing its 'hard' to push precisely on every particle in a pound of dirt to attain fusion. I'm arguing it is provably impossible given quantum mechanical uncertainty bounds.[Quote]

I don't think that is necessarily provable impossible, and besides which that could be the point of handwaving. We're arguing for something that is theoretically impossible, not actually impossible.

Manipulate a coin toss or a dice roll? Sure. But if you want to explode a pound of dirt, look elsewhere.

There's exploding rock that happens in real life. Under the right conditions, ergo replicating those conditions isn't impossible.

Spoiler

Show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jav4-GLXecQ

Also:

Spoiler

Show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTXcNqwDYbM

There's a man made lava-pour, which requires much higher energy and temperature than the sort of lava explosions that involve volatiles in the rock.

Furthermore there are volatiles in rock, so suggesting that a pound of dirt exploding is impossible, is pretty out there, suggesting that it may be extremely difficult to incite fusion, sure that may be very unlikely, but exploding a pound of dirt, certainly possible.

Incidentally, there are actually hard limits on computation. Logic operations basically compress the phase space, which costs a certain lower-bound amount of entropy to do. It's another limit to keep in mind if you really want a 'could actually exist in the real world' system.

Those are however not laws, and if the computational engine exists in another space, or throughout time then there are theoretically ways to exceed that bound. We're not talking laws here, but rather theoretical maximums, which are different things. You can theoretically exceed a theoretical maximum.

But this kind of stuff is why I'm saying, don't bother for a 'perfectly realistic' system. There are a lot of bounds in physics, thermodynamics, information theory, etc that will restrict your system in ways that are fairly tricky to take into account, much less actually apply during a game session. Most of these limits only really come into play if you try to force things in ways that they don't naturally go, like trying to achieve fusion in a lump of material or causing a rock to spontaneously jump to the left. Its much easier to cause the rock to fuse by compressing it and heating it to a billion degrees.

Well wind can push rocks, if you want to push a rock, manipulating gravity or wind is easier than manipulating the rock, and that's certainly possible in a real world system.

But if you just say, in my universe there's the Reizsh Interaction that catalyzes fusion, thats good enough for tabletop gaming.

Certainly, and that's probably what I'm looking for, I'm just saying that it is possible to create a system that is not inconsistent with physical laws, while of course it's going to be vastly improbable, and it won't exist in real life but such a thing is certainly possible.

Edit: Anyhoo, I think we're off topic, as I think we have different bounds for what may be realistically possible in a system, let's say we want a system that doesn't grossly violate the laws of physics, or if transferred could theoretically work in an Earth like system how would you go about that?

Glad to help.
And it'll have wizards take up the motto: "The easier it is, the less likely they'll find you." or some such...
I wonder what that is in latin...
Hmm, "Facilius est facere, ut minus sint tibi" would work for a motto, might want to fiddle with the meaning a little.

Or to steal from someone else, Si deus est proprie officium nemo certus officium fecit. [If god does his job properly, no one is sure he has done his job.]


I'm not sure the book is still in print if you wish to look at the actual system, the copy I have is so old it's pages have changed colour and it's falling apart from age, however I could detail the important parts if you'd like [grading, how it decides it's penalties/why the penalties are those numbers etc]

That would be excellent, thank you!

[Grek]

If you want magic that is "realistic" you pretty much have to have your setting be the fantasy version of the Matrix. Reality is a dream by the Gods and magic is cheat codes that let you be Agent Smith for a while.

[Alroy_Kamenwati]

I can only think of one idea of magic as physics is Full Metal Alchemist but I'm not the best at science. Check out their law of equivalent exchange it might be what you're looking for, I hope I helped some. If not I'm sorry, I'm sure there are smarter people than me who can help you more.

[AMFV]

If you want magic that is "realistic" you pretty much have to have your setting be the fantasy version of the Matrix. Reality is a dream by the Gods and magic is cheat codes that let you be Agent Smith for a while.

Again not necessarily and in the matrix they could change the rules, I'm saying that I'd like to have magic where there is no direct conflict with laws of physics, which again is certainly possible on the onset.

[NichG]

I don't think that is necessarily provable impossible, and besides which that could be the point of handwaving. We're arguing for something that is theoretically impossible, not actually impossible.

What I mean by provably is that it is both theoretically and actually impossible. If you need 10^-30 m and 10^-30 m/s resolution on an electron to achieve an effect, that particular method to achieving the effect is impossible because you cannot do better than delta-x * delta-v = hbar/2, and hbar is about 10^-34 J.s.

Does that mean you can't achieve the effect some other way? No, of course not. As you pointed out, you can blow a rock around with the wind pretty easily, even if you can't achieve the same result by 'manipulating the probability of its individual particles'.

In your lava examples, for instance, the effect of 'exploding rock' is achieved by pumping energy in from other sources - in the first case, due to geological pressures and stresses; in the second case, its the thermal gradient between the pre-heated rock and the ice. These methods work along lines which are easy within the physical and mathematical laws of the universe.

Serpentinization would be another good example - its rock that has readily accessible chemical energy with a very small (relative to fusion) energy barrier. Because there is energy available and accessible, the rock can 'burn' chemically and release that energy. But if you take, e.g., a cup of liquid helium, while it has a lot of potential energy due to the possibility of completing a fusion pathway towards iron, that energy is inaccessible at conditions on earth. If you take that helium, vaporize it and shoot it with lasers to compress it to the conditions of the inside of the sun, then you get fusion. But you actually have to do those things, or something equivalent at least, to get at that energy.

Those are however not laws, and if the computational engine exists in another space, or throughout time then there are theoretically ways to exceed that bound.

Its not so much that you exceed the bound, but rather that you're pay for the bound in some way. This basically comes back to the 'framework' suggestion - there is a supply of energy/entropy that has been put in place to be tapped via an interface, which appears as 'magic' to those who do not understand the interface; one can then tap it to achieve an effect.

I would still say though that its better to go for the easy solutions than the hard ones, or you're going to have something that is 'unrealistic' by virtue of how far you have to go out of your way to make it work. Its a lot easier to justify people bouncing electrical signals off of the ionosphere, using their spine as an antenna than it is to justify each person having a wormhole in their head.

Edit: Anyhoo, I think we're off topic, as I think we have different bounds for what may be realistically possible in a system, let's say we want a system that doesn't grossly violate the laws of physics, or if transferred could theoretically work in an Earth like system how would you go about that?

Well, the main unrealistic thing about magic systems tends to be 'spurious sentience'. Actually I kind of take that to be one of two defining aspects of 'magic vs technology'. Magic is almost always 'personal power', as opposed to 'externalized power'; its also almost always something that makes cognitively complex tasks simple while at the same time often having a hard time with cognitively simple tasks.

Let me give you an example of this - take something like 'this spell harms only people who feel guilty'. Its a very complex task to determine and evaluate the feeling of guilt - it requires basically that the spell be able to read out people's emotions at the very least, and also requires a fairly complex targeting system. If you have something like that in the system, but not a spell that 'lets you read emotions', then it seems odd. Furthermore, if you do have a spell that reads emotions, it should conceivably be far far more complex than a spell that, e.g., starts a fire.

Something like Wish is perhaps the worst offender - its a spell that understands 'what you mean' and then figures out a way to make the world 'that way'. It basically requires the equivalent of a sentience to process how the spell should actually take effect. For a 'physical magic', you don't want to have that sort of spurious sentience. So you're looking for much more basic effects.

The next thing I would do is to make sure that the magic works consistently and originates from a small set of principles. Rather than saying 'can I do this in the system?', build the system outwards from the principles. For example, lets posit a single change to 'our physics':

- It is possible to connect two points in space as if they were adjacent, and disconnect them, as an act of will.

We will also require:

- This process obeys energy and momentum conservation by generating forces at the point of connection in order to preserve those laws.

From this basic change, you can derive an entire magic system. Creating a portal with one end up high and the other at ground level will create a repulsive force around the portal mouth, because you have to pay the momentum and energy change due to the change in altitude to cross the portal mouth - that lets you make a spontaneous kinetic shield. Creating a portal with one end in a hot place and the other in a cold place can create winds, be used as the basis of an engine. Creating a portal on either side of a spinning object would similarly have interesting effects due to the momentum change incurred by passing through, which could be used to fling things around.

Edit: Basically, you're looking for 'consistency' and for magic that 'looks like physics'.

[Osiris]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

So I guess in view of this the answer is either: Yes, magic is possible. Fireball? firearms, explosives, rockets: check! Sending? radiocommunication: check! Illusions? parabolic loudspeaker, (holographic) projectors, stage magic: check! Creation? Advanced chemistry/ nuclear physics, 3d printers: check! Charm person? Sodium Pentothal, hypnotics, brainwashing combined with advanced (future) neuro science and technology: check(ish)!

Or the answer is: No, magic is doing something unexplainable by or opposed to natural laws. So by it's very definition it's in opposition, it is incompatible, it is the opposite of science.

Yup. Magic and Physics don't mix.
http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=369
See the third panel

[AMFV]

What I mean by provably is that it is both theoretically and actually impossible. If you need 10^-30 m and 10^-30 m/s resolution on an electron to achieve an effect, that particular method to achieving the effect is impossible because you cannot do better than delta-x * delta-v = hbar/2, and hbar is about 10^-34 J.s.

Well we're arguing impossibility based on incapability still, which may or may not be something that's restricted, certainly we're looking at something that's probably impossible, so it should probably not be in the system.

Does that mean you can't achieve the effect some other way? No, of course not. As you pointed out, you can blow a rock around with the wind pretty easily, even if you can't achieve the same result by 'manipulating the probability of its individual particles'.

True, I wasn't arguing for manipulation at a particle level, which I think may have been the source of our arguments. I was arguing for manipulation at a macro level.

In your lava examples, for instance, the effect of 'exploding rock' is achieved by pumping energy in from other sources - in the first case, due to geological pressures and stresses; in the second case, its the thermal gradient between the pre-heated rock and the ice. These methods work along lines which are easy within the physical and mathematical laws of the universe.

The second example was more to show that humans could produce similar effects. The exploding rock is actually volatiles from the rock in the first example. In the Magma you have actual volatiles so you can have an explosion from that, it's actually the reduction in pressure that creates the explosion.

Serpentinization would be another good example - its rock that has readily accessible chemical energy with a very small (relative to fusion) energy barrier. Because there is energy available and accessible, the rock can 'burn' chemically and release that energy. But if you take, e.g., a cup of liquid helium, while it has a lot of potential energy due to the possibility of completing a fusion pathway towards iron, that energy is inaccessible at conditions on earth. If you take that helium, vaporize it and shoot it with lasers to compress it to the conditions of the inside of the sun, then you get fusion. But you actually have to do those things, or something equivalent at least, to get at that energy.

Well obviously the biggest problem in the system is the presence of energy, so that would probably be our area of handwaving, no?

Its not so much that you exceed the bound, but rather that you're pay for the bound in some way. This basically comes back to the 'framework' suggestion - there is a supply of energy/entropy that has been put in place to be tapped via an interface, which appears as 'magic' to those who do not understand the interface; one can then tap it to achieve an effect.

I think I was agreeing with that or arguing for something similar a few posts ago, this whole thing has gotten kind of confusing to be honest. I like this idea, although I'm not sure I liked the original nanite suggestion (mostly because it smacks too much of the Phantom Menace). So we could add an extra source of energy, kind of like the ether, or an alternate dimension source of energy, or even some kind of religious entity.

I would still say though that its better to go for the easy solutions than the hard ones, or you're going to have something that is 'unrealistic' by virtue of how far you have to go out of your way to make it work. Its a lot easier to justify people bouncing electrical signals off of the ionosphere, using their spine as an antenna than it is to justify each person having a wormhole in their head.

Maybe, although neither are really that unrealistic in the end. Although the wormhole thing could work if we work around certain things. Mostly I'm looking for the handwaving being that we make things exist instead of that we alter the rules of things.

Well, the main unrealistic thing about magic systems tends to be 'spurious sentience'. Actually I kind of take that to be one of two defining aspects of 'magic vs technology'. Magic is almost always 'personal power', as opposed to 'externalized power'; its also almost always something that makes cognitively complex tasks simple while at the same time often having a hard time with cognitively simple tasks.

Well we could argue for a system of magic where it's channeling some kind of force, that works like a lot of systems, such as the wheel of time system, or other things. Particularly if we have a sentient energy source. Perhaps some kind of God Computer, which could explain the massive computational power.

Let me give you an example of this - take something like 'this spell harms only people who feel guilty'. Its a very complex task to determine and evaluate the feeling of guilt - it requires basically that the spell be able to read out people's emotions at the very least, and also requires a fairly complex targeting system. If you have something like that in the system, but not a spell that 'lets you read emotions', then it seems odd. Furthermore, if you do have a spell that reads emotions, it should conceivably be far far more complex than a spell that, e.g., starts a fire.

Agreed. I agree with this 100%. In a system such as I am proposing Detect Guilt would likely not exist.

Something like Wish is perhaps the worst offender - its a spell that understands 'what you mean' and then figures out a way to make the world 'that way'. It basically requires the equivalent of a sentience to process how the spell should actually take effect. For a 'physical magic', you don't want to have that sort of spurious sentience. So you're looking for much more basic effects.

Well if we have a "God Computer" or other powerful force that can interpret we could have that sort of thing then, so would we need this for this sort of system or do you think we could have something else for this to work?

The next thing I would do is to make sure that the magic works consistently and originates from a small set of principles. Rather than saying 'can I do this in the system?', build the system outwards from the principles. For example, lets posit a single change to 'our physics':

- It is possible to connect two points in space as if they were adjacent, and disconnect them, as an act of will.

We will also require:

- This process obeys energy and momentum conservation by generating forces at the point of connection in order to preserve those laws.

From this basic change, you can derive an entire magic system. Creating a portal with one end up high and the other at ground level will create a repulsive force around the portal mouth, because you have to pay the momentum and energy change due to the change in altitude to cross the portal mouth - that lets you make a spontaneous kinetic shield. Creating a portal with one end in a hot place and the other in a cold place can create winds, be used as the basis of an engine. Creating a portal on either side of a spinning object would similarly have interesting effects due to the momentum change incurred by passing through, which could be used to fling things around.

Edit: Basically, you're looking for 'consistency' and for magic that 'looks like physics'.

Fairly similar, I'm mostly looking for magic that doesn't directly violate the laws of physics. Or "If Aliens Showed Up with This as Technology," it wouldn't seem completely impossible.

Yup. Magic and Physics don't mix.
http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=369
See the third panel

Well D&D and Physics don't, I'm trying to create a system that will, for ****s and giggles.

[Drachasor]

Well we're arguing impossibility based on incapability still, which may or may not be something that's restricted, certainly we're looking at something that's probably impossible, so it should probably not be in the system.

If you're going to toss out the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, might as well toss out most of the rest of science. The support for it is very, very solid. There's a fundamental limit to how small and consistently you can manipulate or measure matter.

It's tempting to think of probability as something easy to manipulate, but it isn't. Not when you are talking about actual physical uncertainty. It's one thing to talk about how you don't know what exactly you'll write on the computer in an hour or how many errors you'll make. That's perhaps a chaotic system...though the brain might be a lot more knowable than that, hard to say with our limited capabilities today. However, it is a totally different thing when you talk about manipulating over a hundred thousand, billion, billion, atoms....figure out what they are doing, and figure out how to adjust them so they do what you want (e.g. explode outward).

It's ok if you don't know a lot about thermodynamics and quantum physics. But rather than give the guy who does a hard time, maybe you should be trying to get some insight from him.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I'd suggest maybe looking into the Dresden Files, there is a Fate setting based on it iirc. Magic is essentially manipulation of already existing energies, either through storage and release or redistribution (okay, not all of their magic works like this, but anything involving fire or cold or force does). Want to blast a ton of fire at something? You redirect the heat from everything around you into a blast, leaving everything behind you frozen over while everything you aim at gets blasted by fire. The main character has a ring that builds up kinetic energy as he swings his arm, making walking/running unnoticably harder, but building up a decent amount of force over a few days that he can release to enhance a punch.

The comic Unsounded works on something interesting as well, in that magic draws "aspects" from things nearby and redirects them. You can take the sound of a waterfall away from it temporarily and release it as a sonic blast, or use the edge of a sword to cut through something.

In both of these systems energy is neither created nor destroyed, just redirected, stored, moved. I think this sort of magic system might be easier to justify under your proposal. Just handwave some sort of advancement that allows people to detect/manipulate existing energies in a new way via sixth sense (how many senses do we have these days? I feel like last I heard it was 7?).

[AMFV]

If you're going to toss out the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, might as well toss out most of the rest of science. The support for it is very, very solid. There's a fundamental limit to how small and consistently you can manipulate or measure matter.

It's tempting to think of probability as something easy to manipulate, but it isn't. Not when you are talking about actual physical uncertainty. It's one thing to talk about how you don't know what exactly you'll write on the computer in an hour or how many errors you'll make. That's perhaps a chaotic system...though the brain might be a lot more knowable than that, hard to say with our limited capabilities today. However, it is a totally different thing when you talk about manipulating over a hundred thousand, billion, billion, atoms....figure out what they are doing, and figure out how to adjust them so they do what you want (e.g. explode outward).

It's ok if you don't know a lot about thermodynamics and quantum physics. But rather than give the guy who does a hard time, maybe you should be trying to get some insight from him.

Well he's talking about manipulation on a particle level, which is I think our point of confusion as I pointed out. I do know something about physics and thermodynamics, not a lot, but a little bit. I know enough to know that things spontaneously combusting is a thing that happens. If you're arguing that something that happens is impossible then that's probably a flawed argument.

And again assuming computational power is limited by our current ability is a little bit challenging, as I've point out we could use a "God in The Machine" type thing. We could have a force that allows to shift probability in ways that are complex. Just because you can't manipulate atoms or model atoms, does not mean that it's impossible. A computer can model more complicated systems than the human brain can, so a more advanced computer could model even more complex things than that.

[Drachasor]

Well he's talking about manipulation on a particle level, which is I think our point of confusion as I pointed out. I do know something about physics and thermodynamics, not a lot, but a little bit. I know enough to know that things spontaneously combusting is a thing that happens. If you're arguing that something that happens is impossible then that's probably a flawed argument.

Things don't combust without reason. A D&D-like Fireball spell is not something that is physically possible without the necessary potential energy that can be released.

And again assuming computational power is limited by our current ability is a little bit challenging, as I've point out we could use a "God in The Machine" type thing. We could have a force that allows to shift probability in ways that are complex. Just because you can't manipulate atoms or model atoms, does not mean that it's impossible. A computer can model more complicated systems than the human brain can, so a more advanced computer could model even more complex things than that.

It's not a matter of computational power at all. It's a matter of the essential nature of reality. It is that we can't make such changes today. It is that the ability to EVER do something like that seems to be about as likely as gravity suddenly disappearing. It is not theoretically possible to gather the information necessary to even begin a manipulation like that. It is more realistic to talk about making a wormhole appear and depositing an explosive where you want an explosion -- but given the energies needed for a wormhole (which itself is a hypothetical entity) that would be a bit crazy.

Fundamentally you're going to have to decide what parts of physics you are willing to break. Right now it seems like you're willing to toss all of quantum mechanics out the window. Not necessarily a bad choice in some respects, but as far as reality goes it is perhaps the are area of physics that has the most solid experimental support.

[AMFV]

Things don't combust without reason. A D&D-like Fireball spell is not something that is physically possible without the necessary potential energy that can be released.

Actually a D&D fireball results from a small particle being shot at something. Which seems pretty realistic...

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_explosion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_combustion

Lots of things have the potential energy to combust. Things like rocks as was shown in the Volcano example, things like dust, things like Potatoes... Are you saying that applying energy to something is impossible? Why couldn't the Mage use magic to apply energy to something? I mean you can use a bomb to apply energy to things, or a microwave, or the sun, or your hand, or a fan, or any number of things.

You are arguing for the impossibility of something that happens, which is kind of ludicrous if you think of it.

Furthermore, explosion from a projectile...

Spoiler

Show

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/rpg-7-launcher.gif

There you go. Since in 3.5 they use a smaller projectile, it's just a matter of getting more efficient explosive, but, hey, magic. That's certainly a realistic thing comparatively.

It's not a matter of computational power at all. It's a matter of the essential nature of reality. It is that we can't make such changes today. It is that the ability to EVER do something like that seems to be about as likely as gravity suddenly disappearing. It is not theoretically possible to gather the information necessary to even begin a manipulation like that. It is more realistic to talk about making a wormhole appear and depositing an explosive where you want an explosion -- but given the energies needed for a wormhole (which itself is a hypothetical entity) that would be a bit crazy.

We manipulate macro scale probability everyday, I change dozens of probabilities to a hundred percent chance of occurring. You're talking about manipulating probability on a particulate scale, which is probably impossible, or at the very least very difficult. Of course you can model particles, which means that a certain degree of information is possible. Again the energies required is going to be the largest problem, but it's certainly not an insurmountable thing.

Also gravity, being a fundamental law of the universe seems more set in stone, than assuming that we'd be unable to manipulate things on a macro scale. Which occurs on Earth. See: Earthquakes caused by Fracking, Holes in the Ozone layer, global climate change. There is clearly some macro change that is attainable, so your argument regarding probabilities only applies to manipulation on a particulate scale.

[Grek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_explosion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_combustion

Why couldn't the Mage use magic to apply energy to something? I mean you can use a bomb to apply energy to things, or a microwave, or the sun, or your hand, or a fan, or any number of things.

Spoiler

Show

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/rpg-7-launcher.gif

We manipulate macro scale probability everyday, I change dozens of probabilities to a hundred percent chance of occurring.

Earthquakes caused by Fracking, Holes in the Ozone layer, global climate change.

The problem with these examples isn't that the physics of them (they are obviously physically possible), but that they aren't magic. A rocket launcher does not make you a wizard. Fracking is not a magical ritual to produce earthquakes. It doesn't take a Mage to bring light to a room with lightbulbs.

Can a scientific sounding explanation be given for any particular power displayed by characters from your RPG of choice? Certainly. The problem is that once you give that explanation, you've moved from the Fantasy genre into the Science Fiction genre, and the mage has to be an highly advanced alien or a human scientist now.

[Drachasor]

I'm honestly not sure how relevant most of my response is, so I put it in spoilers.

Spoiler

Show

There you go. Since in 3.5 they use a smaller projectile, it's just a matter of getting more efficient explosive, but, hey, magic. That's certainly a realistic thing comparatively.

I'm quite familiar with what you posted, but there are clearly aspects you have not considered. Yes, Fireball has a projectile...that comes from nowhere. There's not much a difference between that and not having a projectile at all really. Fireball violates the conservation of energy and a host of other laws. If you propose a magic plane of existent to explain where this energy comes from, then you're basically back to violating physics.

We manipulate macro scale probability everyday, I change dozens of probabilities to a hundred percent chance of occurring. You're talking about manipulating probability on a particulate scale, which is probably impossible, or at the very least very difficult. Of course you can model particles, which means that a certain degree of information is possible. Again the energies required is going to be the largest problem, but it's certainly not an insurmountable thing.

Not "probably impossible" but "IS IMPOSSIBLE." For someone who admits to know very little about this stuff you certainly seem to like acting like you know what you are talking about. No offense, but you don't. Modeling random behavior is easy, because you don't have to care about what the particles in the actual system are doing; you just need to have the model do something roughly equivalent. Do not confuse being able to model a phenomenon with actually being able to measure every aspect of that phenomenon. It doesn't matter if you have infinite energy, you are not going to be able to manipulate probability here like you think you can. Reality does not work that way at the quantum scale.

Also gravity, being a fundamental law of the universe seems more set in stone, than assuming that we'd be unable to manipulate things on a macro scale. Which occurs on Earth. See: Earthquakes caused by Fracking, Holes in the Ozone layer, global climate change. There is clearly some macro change that is attainable, so your argument regarding probabilities only applies to manipulation on a particulate scale.

And anything on a macro scale is going to require a lot of work that can't be done with a simple wave of a wand as best we understand it. There's a world of difference between saying that things can happen one way via vast infrastructure and/or machines, and then going on to saying that any yahoo can do the same with a stick. Anyhow, I was specifically referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle before.

You do seem a bit confused whether you are talking about magic or simply advanced science. There's a pretty huge difference, because technology sufficiently advanced is still technology, however a primitive might interpret it. Seems like you might just be going at technology disguised by a real world stage magician's completely mundane illusions.

I don't see how advanced technology with a bit of stage magic is actual Magic.

[AMFV]

I'm honestly not sure how relevant most of my response is, so I put it in spoilers.

I'm quite familiar with what you posted, but there are clearly aspects you have not considered. Yes, Fireball has a projectile...that comes from nowhere. There's not much a difference between that and not having a projectile at all really. Fireball violates the conservation of energy and a host of other laws. If you propose a magic plane of existent to explain where this energy comes from, then you're basically back to violating physics.

Why does the existence of a magical plane violate physics? Obviously we're going to have to add some things to make magic work, but you could still have magic that doesn't exist. Fireball certainly doesn't violate the conservation of energy if you construct the projectile out of energy that the mage channels. That one is one that could work.

Not "probably impossible" but "IS IMPOSSIBLE." For someone who admits to know very little about this stuff you certainly seem to like acting like you know what you are talking about. No offense, but you don't. Modeling random behavior is easy, because you don't have to care about what the particles in the actual system are doing; you just need to have the model do something roughly equivalent. Do not confuse being able to model a phenomenon with actually being able to measure every aspect of that phenomenon. It doesn't matter if you have infinite energy, you are not going to be able to manipulate probability here like you think you can. Reality does not work that way at the quantum scale.

Well you can still manipulate reality at a macro scale, as I've said. I'm not sure why you continue to make a quantum argument when I've pointed out that the quantum argument isn't what I'm arguing. Being able to model a phenomena does however allow one to examine how certain things could affect it. Since we don't need to understand the entirety of the system to alter it. You don't need to have a complete model to predict how certain things would change the system.

And anything on a macro scale is going to require a lot of work that can't be done with a simple wave of a wand as best we understand it. There's a world of difference between saying that things can happen one way via vast infrastructure and/or machines, and then going on to saying that any yahoo can do the same with a stick. Anyhow, I was specifically referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle before.

Well you can have a magical infrastructure... I'm not sure why you'd simply wave that out of possibility. I'm asking what we would need to add to have a magical infrastructure. As I've established we need to have some source of magical energy, also the "God Machine" type thing might work a lot, which would work towards that whole conceptual idea.

You do seem a bit confused whether you are talking about magic or simply advanced science. There's a pretty huge difference, because technology sufficiently advanced is still technology, however a primitive might interpret it. Seems like you might just be going at technology disguised by a real world stage magician's completely mundane illusions.

I don't see how advanced technology with a bit of stage magic is actual Magic.

Well any magic could be advanced technology for it to work, or you could add something that would make it work, as I'm saying you could add a "God Machine" type thing, or a force that the mage accesses and can channel, that sort of thing. Which can manipulate things.

I'm not sure when there was a definition of actual magic that worked a specific way that would be opposed to what I'm proposing was introduced. I think that any magical system that works in physics and works with other things is likely to be very similar to a technological system, probably almost entirely indistinguishable as Arther C. Clarke pointed out.

The problem with these examples isn't that the physics of them (they are obviously physically possible), but that they aren't magic. A rocket launcher does not make you a wizard. Fracking is not a magical ritual to produce earthquakes. It doesn't take a Mage to bring light to a room with lightbulbs.

Can a scientific sounding explanation be given for any particular power displayed by characters from your RPG of choice? Certainly. The problem is that once you give that explanation, you've moved from the Fantasy genre into the Science Fiction genre, and the mage has to be an highly advanced alien or a human scientist now.

I disagree with that, there's a lot of systems that have you channel some sort of magical energy to affect the world, having that would make it magic. To my thinking, obviously if you're aiming for consistency it might move in that direction. But I don't think it would move to be science fiction unless it specifically is, I don't think it moves us out of fantasy.

[BeerMug Paladin]

AMFV, just for clarification, I'm curious? What is the difference between the kind of magic you're looking for, and 'hard' science fiction? I honestly have a hard time seeing what your distinction is.

Maybe you're just interested in hard science fiction.

[Grek]

If you're "channeling magical energy", than either that energy is coming from somewhere else (in which case you're not doing magic any more than you would be by "channeling electrical energy" to operate a flashlight) OR it comes from nowhere (in which case you're violating the laws of physics).

[AMFV]

AMFV, just for clarification, I'm curious? What is the difference between the kind of magic you're looking for, and 'hard' science fiction? I honestly have a hard time seeing what your distinction is.

Maybe you're just interested in hard science fiction.

Well the setting for one. Also in a hard science fiction setting there is typically an understanding of the system the characters are using, by the characters. For example if you use a space ship you normally understand how they work. In this proposed setting that understanding might not be complete. It would be Arcane and people might understand the ritual of it, but not it's actual workings. To be honest some people might consider it science fiction, but it would certainly be magical. It'd be like having a psychic access to the technology. Or access to a divine entity or somesuch.

If you're "channeling magical energy", than either that energy is coming from somewhere else (in which case you're not doing magic any more than you would be by "channeling electrical energy" to operate a flashlight) OR it comes from nowhere (in which case you're violating the laws of physics).

In what sense is that true? If I call it magical energy and say I'm channeling it how does that stop working. Do you consider the magical system in Wheel of Time to be "magical" because it works by channeling and includes no energy from nowhere. so by your definition that system isn't magic either.

[Drachasor]

So are you ok with an alternate plane that may have laws different than our universe and a super intelligent machine that can monitor and respond for all manner of requests faster than light?

Is that correct?

[AMFV]

So are you ok with an alternate plane that may have laws different than our universe and a super intelligent machine that can monitor and respond for all manner of requests faster than light?

Is that correct?

The alternate plane doesn't necessarily need different laws, and depending on the machines degree of omniscience or omnipresence it may not need to have an FTL response. Extracting energy from an infinite series of other planes or possibilities is certainly one way you could go that would allow for large energy extraction without violating the laws. If a God-Machine thing is omnipresent then it wouldn't need to have an FTL response (which is questionably possible anyways) if it is omniscient, then it might not, since it could predict your wish before it was made. Both of those are reasonably scientific options that don't require violations of the sort you're implying my system should require.

[Drachasor]

In that case, everything in D&D is probably fair game for spells.

[Jacob.Tyr]

If you want something that makes sense and doesn't require a hand wave, you want a realistic game. If you want something that has a sciency sounding dose of handwavium, you're playing sci-fi. If you don't bother with the handwavium, save for calling it magic, then you have fantasy.