Re: How to define "magic" (was Re: Fantasy relativity)

Shining stars

> Tentative idea of a definition of "magic.

> Let's say that in the DnD prime material we can safely assume the following
> physical principles for Muggle (non-magical for non-Harry-Potter-lovers)
> bodies and phenomena.

> 1.Principle of causality (an event can only be influenced by another event
> if they lie in the same tetra-cone of light or "information").
> 2.Principle of universality (laws of physics are the same always and
> everywhere).

To  TayJK  --  Silmacar  has specifically noted that it relates to PMP
only.

> 3.Principle of action and reaction (conservation of momentum).
> 4 and 5.1st and 2nd principle of thermodynamics (1st is conservation of
> energy, 2nd states that enthropy (chaos) always increases, so phenomena
> cannot be entirely reversible).

IIRC,  2nd  states  that  enthropy  never  decreases,  but  there is a
possibility of processes in a closed system that do not increase it as
long as they do not interact with outside world.

> We could then define as magic anything that violates these principles.

I think no.

1st:  don't  mess up "magic" and "divine". IMO, magic does not violate
thermodynamics principle -- it draws energy from somewhere not readily
obvious,  but  it  does  not create it from thin nothingness. Anything
that breaks these two principles requires a divine intervention.

Again,  its  just  a  MO.  I always strongly disliked (A)D&D system in
regard  to  its  priests, for they are just those same spellcasters as
mages, only with different spell repertoire.

2nd:  what  about  inter-/extra-planar phenomena? They not necessarily
will  all  fit  into  this  scheme.  Are  they all magic? Are they all
mundane? Or something in-between?

Good Luck
Andrew "NightBeing" Alchemist