"Any technology sufficiently advanced would be indistinguishable from Magic"

[Ron_Tomkins]

One of science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke's 3 laws. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

This argument has been gaining traction in supporting the belief that we would not be able to understand ET technology because its so far advanced that it would be like magic.

However, the only way this argument works is if there are no scientific methods to study the phenomenon.

For example, let's say someone from the 21st century traveled back in time to medieval europe and brought some current technology to introduce to the time. The argument is that the medieval folk would treat the technology as magic because its so far advanced and they don't understand it. But they also didn't have any way of measuring the new 21st century technology.

Now of course if we ever did come into contact with super advanced technology from ETs, then the argument is WE don't have any way of measuring the tech. I disagree with this premise but I'm interested to hear more thoughts on it.

You yourself have correctly and accurately explained the argument and then you say you disagree with it? I don't understand, why? If we have no way of discerning an extremely advanced technology from a Supernatural being, why then do you disagree that it is perfectly reasonable to say "It might as well be a very very advanced technology as opposed to a God"?

 

[geni]

Really boils down to how you define magic.

If we consider magic to be an amazing event that we personaly can't explain then much of technology is already magic to at least some people (do you really know how an LCD works for example).

If we consider magic to be an amazing event that our civilisation can't explain then potentialy things like macro scale teleportation might qualify

If we consider magic to be events that are commonly depicted as magical ( fireballs, most of the old testiment) then in many areas our technology is sufficiently advanced.

If we consider magic to be creating an amazing event through non technological means then it's hard to answer but it's unclear what that means.

 

[Rasmus]

It is still not magic. Frustration does not = magic. Yeah, you may not get the Nobel for figuring it out, but one of your students might, which is still a win.

But it is: A magic carpet - by definition! - is magic.

It would be indistinguishable to advanced technology. Looking for the technology would never get you anywhere, because there would be no technology!

If it was technology - which it isn't because it's a magic carpet - then the technology would no longer be "sufficiently advanced" once it was figured out.

 

[Travis]

Echoing what Gawdzilla said. I would be very careful who I showed a working iPad to in 16th century Europe. To us it makes sense because it is an evolution of previous things. To someone who has never even encountered electricity yet it would appear to be a magic book that shows images from a netherworld.

 

[Aepervius]

Echoing what Gawdzilla said. I would be very careful who I showed a working iPad to in 16th century Europe. To us it makes sense because it is an evolution of previous things. To someone who has never even encountered electricity yet it would appear to be a magic book that shows images from a netherworld.

But in the mean time we learned as a specie better. (well mostly).

If we saw something hovering in the air , we would not jump to "magic" we would jump to "technology to research". As said above, the OTHER way around is more likely : that we would research magic and find nothing and go bonkers.

We do not have any equivalent today. The problem is , sf film/book/etc are presenting wonderous stuff and pushing it as "science" fiction (FTL, teleportation, ESP, and I pass many other) , but in reality they are just using "magic" to fill plot holes and camouflaging into science. Same with very advanced tech which "dumbfound" us human.

I would wagger that in reality such suffisentiely advanced tech would only dumbfound us long enough to find out the basic principle, and even be too complicated for us to reproduce, but I would wagger it would NOT be too complicated to understand or mismatch for magic.

Anyway it is a moot point until such a tech is encountered... Assertion agaisnt assertion.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think the paradox is that knowledge of Clarke's Third Law is the only exception to Clarke's Third Law. If we encounter an alien civilisation that's capable of doing things that violate the laws of physics as we understand them, anyone with a knowledge of Clarke's Third Law will simply conclude, not that they are capable of magic, but that their technology and their understanding of the laws of physics are more advanced than ours.

Dave

 

[Aepervius]

I think the paradox is that knowledge of Clarke's Third Law is the only exception to Clarke's Third Law. If we encounter an alien civilisation that's capable of doing things that violate the laws of physics as we understand them, anyone with a knowledge of Clarke's Third Law will simply conclude, not that they are capable of magic, but that their technology and their understanding of the laws of physics are more advanced than ours.

Dave

That would have happened without knowledge of Clarke's law.

 

[Brainache]

But if a sufficiently advanced alien like Q from Star Trek showed up on Earth and decided to tell people that he was God and used all of his highly advanced technology to trick people into believing him...

How could we distinguish between him and a real God?

 

[Rasmus]

But if a sufficiently advanced alien like Q from Star Trek showed up on Earth and decided to tell people that he was God and used all of his highly advanced technology to trick people into believing him...

How could we distinguish between him and a real God?

Q wasn't using any technology...

 

[Darat]

Echoing what Gawdzilla said. I would be very careful who I showed a working iPad to in 16th century Europe. To us it makes sense because it is an evolution of previous things. To someone who has never even encountered electricity yet it would appear to be a magic book that shows images from a netherworld.

So you are saying that Apple's devices are indistinguishable from Satanism.. you might be on to something.

To the wider topic of the thread - it is as Soapy Sam says - it wasn't meant to be taken 100% seriously, much like Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I think at times folk get stuck on a literal understanding of a phrase missing that it was being used figuratively.

 

[Brainache]

Q wasn't using any technology...

Or is that just what he wants us to think?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Technology is gradual, so if we invented it then it would build on something already existing, so it wouldn't be much of a shock. If ET intelligence invented it and showed it to us, then we'd still be able to explain it using the laws of nature.

Not necessarily. It might require laws of physics that we do not know yet.
For instance, it would be impossible to explain an iPhone to someone using 19th century physics. You'd first have to explain a century worth of physics to them.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I do not think the analogy of bringing a cell phone in salem is valid. For one TODAY, we certainly have much more scientist and engineer in the population than we DID have in 17th century. Secondly even the population at large now recognize the benefit of technology, and would be more akin to assign stuff to trickery/technology or even "ESP" than magic. Sure there is the woo, believing in magic, but how many of them in proportion ?

Secondly I question that there could be *ANY* technology which we would not be able to dissect and be dumb founded. I can see something *so* complex that we could not be able to reproduce it or say in detail how it works (think of the brain), but I don't see WHY we would not be able to say which general principle it uses.

No, the reason people keep saying that, is because they are dunked in a bath of science fiction / Fantasy cultural book, film and cartoon, where essentially everybody is making up their own magic, and pretending it is based on science. The reality is almost certainly much more prosaic.

That's all based on a cock-sure attitude that today's technology is the crown of creation, of course. I certainly hope we don't stop advancing in science and remain stagnant at the current level.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So you are saying that Apple's devices are indistinguishable from Satanism.. you might be on to something.

To the wider topic of the thread - it is as Soapy Sam says - it wasn't meant to be taken 100% seriously, much like Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I think at times folk get stuck on a literal understanding of a phrase missing that it was being used figuratively.

You're not a fanboy until you have the latest version of the iDemon.

 

[Darat]

Not necessarily. It might require laws of physics that we do not know yet.
For instance, it would be impossible to explain an iPhone to someone using 19th century physics. You'd first have to explain a century worth of physics to them.

This is nearer to what I think is meant by Clarke's 3rd law, without common referents we'd soon be throwing bones at the black monolith or sacrificing other people to it.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Isn't it rather self fulfilling? After all, how advanced does the technology have to be to be indistinguishable from magic? Well, it has to be advanced enough that you can't tell it from magic, of course. Any example where you can tell what the advanced technology is, it just wasn't advanced enough.

 

[AdMan]

Isn't it rather self fulfilling? After all, how advanced does the technology have to be to be indistinguishable from magic? Well, it has to be advanced enough that you can't tell it from magic, of course. Any example where you can tell what the advanced technology is, it just wasn't advanced enough.

Well, I think the question is can there be such a sufficiently advanced technology that it would be indistinguishable to us (at least initially--I think this is key) from magic.

Given how much of our current technology would have been incomprehensible and deemed impossible just a hundred years ago, I'd say it would be presumptious for us in this age to believe that no advanced technology is way beyond our (initial) understanding.

 

[MontagK505]

One of science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke's 3 laws. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

This argument has been gaining traction in supporting the belief that we would not be able to understand ET technology because its so far advanced that it would be like magic.

However, the only way this argument works is if there are no scientific methods to study the phenomenon.

For example, let's say someone from the 21st century traveled back in time to medieval europe and brought some current technology to introduce to the time. The argument is that the medieval folk would treat the technology as magic because its so far advanced and they don't understand it. But they also didn't have any way of measuring the new 21st century technology.

Now of course if we ever did come into contact with super advanced technology from ETs, then the argument is WE don't have any way of measuring the tech. I disagree with this premise but I'm interested to hear more thoughts on it.

Our experience would suggest that all technology is based on the application of our understanding of the way the universe works (science). A super advanced technology might be mysterious but we would assume that in principle we could understand it. However, if the ET's had a million years to develop their technology, it might take us a while to develop the equivalent capability.

Magic implies that true understanding would be forever beyond our reach.

 

[Aepervius]

But if a sufficiently advanced alien like Q from Star Trek showed up on Earth and decided to tell people that he was God and used all of his highly advanced technology to trick people into believing him...

How could we distinguish between him and a real God?

But what if suddenly dragon open a space time portal and started selling megamagic-pot at the corner of each street ? And what if god is actually a lich performing necromentic experience on an universal level ?

Non sensical scenario can be made up to try to put a scenario in a corner. But Q is an imaginated scenario. A TV serie. Q is using *magic* and the serie paint it as technology. Demonstration : Q is moving matter at distance or if I remember some episode, using telepathy.

 

[Aepervius]

Not necessarily. It might require laws of physics that we do not know yet.
For instance, it would be impossible to explain an iPhone to someone using 19th century physics. You'd first have to explain a century worth of physics to them.

Which is happenning all over the place in schools.
It took us a century to research all tech to come to that point. It does not take a century to teach it to young human.

If that 19th century person (heck or even 16th century person) is open minded and has the willingness to learn, we could teach her how cell phone work relatively quickly , starting from some mathtematical fundation, down to the principle of current , light. And to boot we could even show her a few experiment.

There is no reason whatsoever to think alien tech COULD not be explained to us, or could not even be experimented upon to discover how it works. Anybody assuming that we could not find out the inner working of some tech, is assuming "magic" rather than tech.