Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

Quantum Magick and Magical Laws

Page: 1(2)

08:51 / 23.04.03

I've met plenty of wicca types who try and impress on me the law of threefold return. I see this as comparable to the parts of "science" which were dictated by the church and had to be paid lip service. ie. Creationism.

I'm not saying it never happens, but it's not a law of magical physics. ("lore of physics"?)

ALCHAMY->CHEMISTRY: We distilled the parts of alchamy which actually worked and called it (modern) chemistry and found new rules based on those. The lead into gold stuff was mostly left behind because it wasn't useful.

NAILS THROUGH SHEEP HEARTS: taboo breaking, or doing things which freak you out, remains a very good way of getting your brain into an optimum state for metaprogramming.

AS ABOVE, SO BELOW: ultimately you can't prove the highest level of reality (IMO) you can only prove that it's self-consistant. Perhaps quantum physics is the part of magic which works. You could say that the laws of magic mentioned earlier prove quantum physics, rather than the other way around. I mean, which is lower level? What are the dimensions of a thaum?

ART AND SCIENCE of MAGIC: There's an awful lot of wishful thinking in magic, which is usually very helpful, but sometimes the romantic view pisses me off. Sometimes it's just not appropriate. A ritual involving sacred spaces, lemur skulls and burning herbs intended to make your hair shorter is not the best one. The best one is get some money, go to a hairdressers. Magic is changing the world in conformance with will, it doesn't have to be occult. Just like people don't believe they own sci-fi personal communicators, they just think of them as mobile phones.

10:04 / 23.04.03

LAW OF REACTION- that which you do returns to you (maybe threefold)
I've always thought the threefold rule appropriate, because in a way magic is like cheating the rules of reality. Power comes with a price.

"Quantum, all the things you mention break down above the microscopic" (Lurid Archive)
Yes, on a larger scale Newton is pretty much right. But I believe 'As Above, So Below', I believe the universe to be self similar irrespective of scale. I'm not saying that large objects act in a quantum manner in everyday life, but it is interesting that one methodology (Science) can derive similar generalisms to another (Magick).
My first (and less polite) response would have been "So Magick only works on small things then?" but that wouldn't have been constructive

Science is a method, Magick is a different method, each have their strengths and weaknesses. But as tangentially pointed out above, Biology can be explained by Chemistry which can in turn be explained by Physics. Physics has provided us with an incredibly powerful predictive system which explains how the natural laws we see arise from the interaction of bazillions of tiny things behaving 'weirdly' to give us big things that behave 'normally'. So the weirdness is kinda fundamental to our world.
You can't dismiss Q Physics by saying 'Oh, but it only counts for tiny things' those tiny things make up small things which make up big things (the Planck length is the threshhold above which things start to behave in the way we are familiar with, but those ways are derived from the weird behaviour of things below that size). We live in a counterintuitive probabilistic world, our 'common sense' is scale sensitive.

The debate about Quantum physics above is becoming a Laboratory style debate over the Philosophy of Science, so I want to change focus a little. Let's take it as read that science can't prove magick (that was a teaser to finish the first post) that's not the point. How do we explain the similarity of the general laws of both systems?
Coincidence?

10:18 / 23.04.03

Magic is largely about finding things which work (IMO), whereas science is (should be) about taking things that work and finding out why.

Once magic becomes repeatable, and you can apply a reliable consistent model to it then it becomes indistinguishable from science. It becomes science.

Although a more cynical view would be that magic is the cargo-cult of physics. People imperfectly copying things that they were told somebody else saw work once, but not understanding the essence that made it work. Like a small island tribe which once had an allied force based on it in WWII and now makes psudo airstrips and read lists of things they need into rocks shaped like radios in the expectation of great metal birds bringing their gifts.

Another view: magic is trying to get through reality by the seat of your pants. Like building things without the instructions. If you try to build an IKEA flatpack without instructions you'll get a bit of crappy furniture (and it'd not be much better if you read the instructions). Try to build an FM radio without instructions (or training) and you don't have a hope in hell of getting it to do anything useful. But isn't it always a let down when you have to give in and read the instructions? It's more fun to improvise your own way.

11:53 / 23.04.03

Superstition is the cargo cult of Magick

Magick is an Art (THE Art?) and as such places importance on intuition, creativity and the like. Science on the other hand places importance on reason, reliability and replicability. Magick is unreliable, irrational and capricious, so in scientific terms makes no sense (Like Art) as elseware says above, a reliable spell you can repeat that is rationally explicable is science, not magick.

I think the discovery of these magical quantum laws emphasises the importance of consciousness (cf observer principle etc). We are discovering that our models to explain the world are fundamentally psychological- we live in an anthropic universe. I believe that is because we project our perceptions onto the world (the Absolute, the Diamond) so they are intrinsically human-mind flavoured, and that this applies to science as much as anything else. Science is an edifice built by people attempting to explain things, taking Literalism and Objectivism as their articles of faith.

12:05 / 23.04.03

We are discovering that our models to explain the world are fundamentally psychological- we live in an anthropic universe. I believe that is because we project our perceptions onto the world (the Absolute, the Diamond) so they are intrinsically human-mind flavoured, and that this applies to science as much as anything else.

There is no spoon

14:00 / 23.04.03

Ive always seen the question of science proving magic (or vice versa) as relating more to the paradigms involved than to objective proof.

Back in the way back when, the two primary paradigms would have been magic and religion, both allowing for each others existence. The combination of the two tried to suppress the rise of science (see Giordano Bruno for examples), but, when science couldnt be suppressed any further, religion divested itself of it's alliance to magic, and hooked up with science.

Fast forward to the near-present, and religion is the ailing one, with magic seriously overtaking, especially so from the 60s onwards. As such, science is evolving to allow for the existence of magic.

Of course, the above point of view assumes you believe in paradigmatic egregores, which i do. However, more important for this thread is how the above appears to the scientist.

When quantum mechanical equations are better understood, scientists will recognise that the scientific paradigm allows for the "truth" of the magical paradigm. hopefully, when magicians recognise the opposite is also true, we'll be able to move towards a unified paradigm of magic+science

roach

15:01 / 23.04.03

Hmm. Perhaps any form of magic, if advanced enough, is indistinguishible from science.

08:07 / 24.04.03

Isn't that a quote from Clarke C. Arthur?

09:09 / 24.04.03

yup. Inventor of Satellite-Stationary Geos.

This is going off topic so I'm going to start a seperate thread.

16:38 / 24.04.03

I like these Magickal Theorems set forth by Peter Carroll:

M = G x L(1-A)(1-R)

All factors are between 0 and 1.

M equals the force of your magic, which is dependent upon G (Gnosis) and L (magical Link), multiplied by two negative factors (things working against you) - Your conscious awareness of the desired result (1-A) and your subconscious resistance to doing magic (1-R), i.e. "Mommy told me magick doesn't work".

Pm = P - P x M 1/(1/-p)

P equals the chance the event you desire occurs by itself; (1/(1/-p)) equals the chance that the result you desire will not occur. Pm equals the combination of the Probability that the event will occur combined with your magical effort to make it occur.

08:38 / 25.04.03

What if your working is to alter the probability of your working? Seems like pseudoscience to me, all of those algebraic concepts are unquantifiable.

09:05 / 25.04.03

Elsewhere - interesting comment about tabboo breaking re: nails through Sheep's Hearts.

I'm very interested in the genuinely old forms of Witchcraft, rather than the modern Wiccan type stuff (though I can bore for Britain on the history and origins of that...). Yeah, your point about metaprogramming is a sound one, and is putting into modern parlance what was actually going on in these forms of magic.

A lot of 'modern' magic is about changing yourself and subjecting yourself to de/re-programming, but the older stuff, like nails-through-hearts, witchbottles, spirithouses etc. etc. etc. is about freaking other people out and seeking to impose will by making others susceptible to suggestion and/or direct control.

09:55 / 25.04.03

...also doing weird/unpleasant things gets you respect as having the commitment to a weird lifestyle, and identifies you as a part of a tradition. Witchcraft is a vocation in traditional terms, and comes with trappings and behaviour people expect to see. Compare a doctor- you expect the white coat and stethoscope etc.
If I went to a witch, I'd want nails through hearts and stuf, just for the theatrics of it- drama generates power.

16:02 / 25.04.03

Quantum wrote:
Seems like pseudoscience to me, all of those algebraic concepts are unquantifiable.

I think if you look at the formulae, you'll see they're internally consistent and do a good job of defining the magickal act. If you try to extend them to something quantifiable then, yeah, you'll probably be hard-pressed to come up with a value for, say, Gnosis or Magickal Link. But I think this is the very fallacy that we've been discussing here - the theorems for magick are not quantifiable (at least that's my general assertion). This doesn't mean we can't derive successful formulae though.

18:14 / 25.04.03

LVX23 -

Does the term "Order of Hermes" mean anything to you?

Who's your Tzaddi?

18:52 / 25.04.03

In the Age of Nanotech (NTzCh), the pillars of the new tree/Otz Chim are to be called just that - Art and Science.

Horus Hiesenburg

00:57 / 27.04.03

Actually I'm Hermes Nuclear, don't ask. Anyway, the use of algebraics to denote magickal formula is certainly a useful concept, especially giving a limit of 1 to 0. In the end though, formulas for magick are just another form of theatrics, something to beaf up your consciousness for the big 0h.

Nietzsch E. Coyote

06:18 / 27.04.03

No man we are Virtual Adepts

19:51 / 28.04.03

ha i'm back!! And i always saw myself as one of the sons of ether. hyuck.

11:38 / 30.04.03

I'm a cult of ecstasy meself, we don't need no steenking formulae, we got dancing girls and drums and drugs...

14:09 / 30.04.03

equations are for describing relations, not quantities. magic and science have been in the team-up since the late seventies in order to combat the badness spread by religion. religion may be failing, but as it does so it becomes more dangerous than it has ever been before. art, science, why arent you all trying to unify those illusory opposites?

15:13 / 30.04.03

What? Look at the beginning of this thread again, that's exactly what we're trying to do.
I'd take issue with your criticism of Religion there too, although I admit the Church(es) have done many bad things (and continue to do so, eg the missionaries going into Iraq). Religion is not bad in itself.

Also I'm not saying they're opposites, just they have usually been perceived as in conflict. Is Art opposite Science, Religion or Magick?

And have magick and science been teamed up? When?

(please don't take my prodding you to be harsh, I want to hear what you have to say! I agree we should be unifying, but not against Religion, FOR unity)

17:04 / 30.04.03

Personally, I feel that Magick and Art are the same thing. So trying to unify Science and Magick is the same as unifying Science and Art.

19:04 / 30.04.03

Your science is your magick and art
Your magick is your science and art
Your art is your magick and science
let these men be set to grrrind golden apples

Page: 1(2)