If you want to know if there is something, you first have to define what it is.Because if you don’t know what beer is, you can’t see if it’s in the fridge. So we must at least have a vague idea of what it is.
So what is “real magic”?How could they be identified?
There are things that look like real magic – including products that come from an advanced technology that we don’t know, and what we call magic: the acting representation of a magician on stage with the help of invisible “Special Effects”.In both cases, however, it is deception, the advanced technology uses the same laws of nature as we do, but understands more of it, and the stage magician uses trick techniques to deceive us – what we see is not what is happening, our Thinking is misled, and so we see something that is “actually” not possible. Most people don’t understand that they are much more likely to be deceived than they can imagine.
Stage magicians use the laws of nature, but make it look as if they could overcome them or that they do not apply to them.There have always been people who have used the same trick techniques to trick people into pretending they have “real magic.” The modern stage magicians and the modern charlatans are something of a natural enemy: while the stage magician, the illusionist, admits that he uses tricks, the swindler disguises this, mostly to exploit people.
And with that one can define real magic as: events triggered by human beings, which are contrary to the lawsof nature .
What is interesting in this context is that one has never been found in nature: logical contradictions.Yes, there are always observations that contradict the well-known laws of nature.Then either the observation is wrong, or it turns out that we have misunderstood or did not understand the laws of nature in question. At the moment, there is an astonishing observation – which, incidentally, was initially questioned – namely that the stars orbit the center of a galaxy at the same speed, regardless of their distance from the center. This goes against everything we think we know about the movement of stars.
Laws of nature are not, as the name suggests, laws that dictate to nature how to behave.Rather, they are models, descriptions of the actual behaviour of nature, provided that that description must apply independently of the position of an observer in time and space.
So can an event contradict a law of nature?Yes,absolutely, and this happens regularly – if the law of nature, the model, is flawed, i.e. the behaviour of nature is misdescribed. Laws of nature are descriptions,and a description can contradict what it describes – but we call that a mistake.We then correct the description, i.e. we adapt the laws of nature to the new findings. Because we do not want to have a logical contradiction between nature and the description of nature (= laws of nature).
Incidentally, we do not even know with certainty whether it is possible to describe all laws of nature in time and space, regardless of the position of an observer.We also do not know when we have found all the correct laws of nature, so when the description is complete.Probably only when we have seen everything that has ever happened – and that is impossible. However, we know with certainty that the known laws of nature are incomplete, that they contain errors, and that they need to be adapted. We know the gaps – in part.
So what if an event happens that is contraryto the laws of nature?
Then we know that we have found an error in the description ofnature.
Because there can be nothing that can contradict the laws of nature that we would like to know.It is as if we are describing an image: can the description contradict the image? Yes, of course – but is the description faulty or the picture? Of course, you then correct the description, not the image. One takes a new picture of nature, so to speak, one changes the descriptions of nature accordingly.
So is there “real magic”?No, there is always something that looks like this, so it appears when you have discovered an error in the description of nature. But this is a deception, a mistake, a gap in the description of nature.
What about “the supernatural”?This is pure language hocus-pocus. There are two definitions of nature: one is the opposition to culture – culture is everything that people have manipulated, made, created, changed, nature the whole rest, that is, everything that people have not touched and adapted. The world as a whole is divided into two, so to speak, conceptually: the part that has been changed by human beings (culture) and the part in which this is not the case (nature). A cultural forest has been planted by humans or is cultivated by humans, a natural forest is not.
What should be a “third category”?Something we don’t know whether it was humanly edited or not? That is certainly not meant. What should be “supernatural” in this context, i.e. “above nature”? Everything that has not been done by human beings belongs to nature: if there is a God, he is part of nature. If people have only come up with God, he is part of the culture. There can be no third – an “overnature”.
The second definition of nature, made by the scientists and based on them, is even simpler:
Nature is all that is the case, that is, the sum of allfacts.
There is a part of the facts created by people called “culture”.This distinction can therefore be made further. “The Sum of All Facts” encompasses everything that is a fact, including the one you know, do not yet know, or will never know.
What, please, should mean “supernatural” now?For example, that something is not a fact, so belongs to the imagination? Or because it is conceited, i.e. part of culture (all fantasy belongs to culture)? What is a fact that does not belong to the sum of all the facts? Again, if There is God, he is part of nature, unless he belongs to the richness of fantasy. When one says that God is “above nature” or “does not belong to nature”, then one says in terms of content that he is pure fantasy, that is, belongs to culture. Either – or. Either God belongs to nature, or he belongs to culture, and a third is excluded. It makes no sense, either linguistically or logically. Of course, this also applies to all kinds of “real magic”.
“Real Magic” is either a deception that arises because you don’t have enough information about what’s going on – that’s the method a stage magician uses to deceive us – or the reference to a mistake in our descriptions of nature.If there were telepathy, for example, if it had been proven, it would now be scientifically researched and used, because then it belongs to nature, the sum of all facts. “Real Magic” is a temporary phenomenon – something that looks just like real magic like the tricks of the stage artists until you find out where you are deceiving yourself. “Real Magic” is nothing more than a trick that has not yet been seen through or a mistake in the description of nature.It stops looking like “real magic” once you have corrected the description of nature.
I know – a lot of people would like it to be different.But the reality is not what we want. You can bend the words, you can talk about “the supernatural,” and many people don’t notice what nonsense it is. This can be decided purely linguistically. There is no possible definition of the supernatural with which one can eliminate the division of the world into “nature” and “culture” or “sum of all facts” and “no facts”. What we commonly refer to as “supernatural” is nothing more than the realm of nature of which we know nothing or notenough.That is why ignorance is synonymous with supernatural. You can use both terms for each other without changing the meaning of a sentence:
“The stage magician made it look like he was floating due to supernatural forces” – which means that he uses natural forces to float, but we don’t know which ones.
“Uri Geller was able to bend forks in a supernatural way” means nothing more than that Uri Geller used unknown means to bend forks (ultimately, it was ordinary trickery that also uses stage magicians).
So if there is “real magic”, it only means that we have an unknown phenomenon.”Unknown” and “real magic” are already linguistically synonymous. Either that, or “real magic” is pure linguistic nonsense.