Clarke's Third Law - what does it say?

[Chiclo]

Citations of Clarke's Third Law abound lately on this board. What does it say? What are its limitations?

Clarke's Third Law says "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This law does not say there is no magic; only that advanced technology is an alternative to magic. I would argue further, that not only does it preclude magic, but there must be some universally understood concept of magic that this advanced technology can be compared against. THEREFOR Clarke's Third Law not only does not exclude magic, it assumes its wide awareness.

Is this a law in a legal sense or in a physics sense? Does Clarke's Third Law limit human behaviour by making rules to prohibit action by humans or is it a law that governs the workings of the natural world? Either way, men will covet breaking both kinds of laws. This is intended as a guide to fiction writers, more a suggestion than even a law. Putting a hard barrier, claiming that magic does not exist begs at Clarke's Second Law - "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

Finally, I cite Clarke's First Law. "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." If we take the role of the elderly scientist and assert that something is possible, that advanced technology is a possible alternative to a universally recognised magic, we are almost certainly right. If we claim that the Third Law makes magic impossible, we become very wrong.

Clarke's Third Law says that we may be capable of magic or something indistinguishable from it. Clarke's Third Law denies the non-existence of magic. Using Clarke's Third Law to exclude magic is a gross misuse of this suggestion to fiction writers and works against the very wonder that is the medium in which fiction writers ply their craft.

[ManofTheAtom]

Citations of Clarke's Third Law abound lately on this board. What does it say? What are its limitations?

Clarke's Third Law says "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This law does not say there is no magic; only that advanced technology is an alternative to magic. I would argue further, that not only does it preclude magic, but there must be some universally understood concept of magic that this advanced technology can be compared against. THEREFOR Clarke's Third Law not only does not exclude magic, it assumes its wide awareness.

Is this a law in a legal sense or in a physics sense? Does Clarke's Third Law limit human behaviour by making rules to prohibit action by humans or is it a law that governs the workings of the natural world? Either way, men will covet breaking both kinds of laws. This is intended as a guide to fiction writers, more a suggestion than even a law. Putting a hard barrier, claiming that magic does not exist begs at Clarke's Second Law - "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

Finally, I cite Clarke's First Law. "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." If we take the role of the elderly scientist and assert that something is possible, that advanced technology is a possible alternative to a universally recognised magic, we are almost certainly right. If we claim that the Third Law makes magic impossible, we become very wrong.

Clarke's Third Law says that we may be capable of magic or something indistinguishable from it. Clarke's Third Law denies the non-existence of magic. Using Clarke's Third Law to exclude magic is a gross misuse of this suggestion to fiction writers and works against the very wonder that is the medium in which fiction writers ply their craft.

Agreed. However, before we reach this part, "When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong", we must first exhaust all other alternatives until we've reached the point in which it becomes absolutely impossible to use advanced technology to explain what appears to be magical.

When it comes to the satchel and the dagger, I don't think we're there yet since both can very well be explained using advanced futuristic technology.

[Chiclo]

Agreed. However, before we reach this part, "When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong", we must first exhaust all other alternatives until we've reached the point in which it becomes absolutely impossible to use advanced technology to explain what appears to be magical.

When it comes to the satchel and the dagger, I don't think we're there yet since both can very well be explained using advanced futuristic technology.

Why would the burden of proof be wholly on the side of magic? Why is magic assumed to be impossible if there is the slimmest indicator that some fictional artifact has a technological origin? Especially when the creators clearly meant for these artifacts to have magical origins, like the dagger and the satchel. There are plausible technological explanations for these, yes, but those are possible explanations that do not and cannot exclude other possible origins of these artifacts. The truth is that explanations for these artifacts are not explained. The lesson of Clarke’s First Law is that anyone in fiction making those kinds of claims of certainty is due for a dose of hubris.

Does Clarke’s First Law only apply if it is vigorously proved not to contradict the Third? Arthur C. Clarke should have reversed those numbers!

Just because Asimov wrote laws of robotics doesn’t mean that stories are not written where those laws are violated. Even in stories that cite those laws of robotics, sometimes robots go freewill.

Only siths deal in absolutes.

[ManofTheAtom]

Why would the burden of proof be wholly on the side of magic? Why is magic assumed to be impossible if there is the slimmest indicator that some fictional artifact has a technological origin? Especially when the creators clearly meant for these artifacts to have magical origins, like the dagger and the satchel. There are plausible technological explanations for these, yes, but those are possible explanations that do not and cannot exclude other possible origins of these artifacts. The truth is that explanations for these artifacts are not explained. The lesson of Clarke’s First Law is that anyone in fiction making those kinds of claims of certainty is due for a dose of hubris.

Does Clarke’s First Law only apply if it is vigorously proved not to contradict the Third? Arthur C. Clarke should have reversed those numbers!

Just because Asimov wrote laws of robotics doesn’t mean that stories are not written where those laws are violated. Even in stories that cite those laws of robotics, sometimes robots go freewill.

Only siths deal in absolutes.

"If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

Before we declare that something is absolutely magical, we should first disprove that it can be technological, especially when time travel and futuristic technology are thrown into the mix.

How many times did Ivar travel to the past carrying something from the future with him that he just left there and didn't bother to destroy?

If he could, for instance, abandon a 1985 Sony Walkman in 33 A.D., why can't he, likewise, abandon a dagger from the 51st Century or a satchel from the 105th Century in 2 B.C.?

[ManofTheAtom]

For many decades, everything that had to do with Asgard in Marvel comics was deemed to be magical.

In time, however, science has more and more been used to try to explain what Asgardian technology really is. Many times, Iron Man has been portrayed as being skeptical of Asgardian so-called magic.

In the Marvel movies, Asgard has been redefined as a place where magic and technology are indistinguishable.

It's not impossible for the same to be true in VALIANT, particularly given that much of what defined VALIANT's identity during Shooter's tenure came from Lee's Marvel.

[IMJ]

I thought Clarke's third law was "never remove your glasses in front of Lois"....
You guys are too sophisticated for an unedumacated guy like mineself.

[ManofTheAtom]

I thought Clarke's third law was "never remove your glasses in front of Lois"....
You guys are too sophisticated for an unedumacated guy like mineself.

Heh.

[Chiclo]

Why would the burden of proof be wholly on the side of magic? Why is magic assumed to be impossible if there is the slimmest indicator that some fictional artifact has a technological origin? Especially when the creators clearly meant for these artifacts to have magical origins, like the dagger and the satchel. There are plausible technological explanations for these, yes, but those are possible explanations that do not and cannot exclude other possible origins of these artifacts. The truth is that explanations for these artifacts are not explained. The lesson of Clarke’s First Law is that anyone in fiction making those kinds of claims of certainty is due for a dose of hubris.

Does Clarke’s First Law only apply if it is vigorously proved not to contradict the Third? Arthur C. Clarke should have reversed those numbers!

Just because Asimov wrote laws of robotics doesn’t mean that stories are not written where those laws are violated. Even in stories that cite those laws of robotics, sometimes robots go freewill.

Only siths deal in absolutes.

"If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

Before we declare that something is absolutely magical, we should first disprove that it can be technological, especially when time travel and futuristic technology are thrown into the mix.

How many times did Ivar travel to the past carrying something from the future with him that he just left there and didn't bother to destroy?

If he could, for instance, abandon a 1985 Sony Walkman in 33 A.D., why can't he, likewise, abandon a dagger from the 51st Century or a satchel from the 105th Century in 2 B.C.?

Which are the horses andwhich the zebras? The analogy is deeply flawed because the ratio of the likelihood of magical vs. technological origins is much closer than the ratio of populations between horses and zebras in NorthAm.

I do not deny the possibility that these could be technological artifacts but I am skeptical. Magical origins seem more likely and seem more consistent with the intent of the author. Neither is stated explicitly - they probably did not think it was necessary - so declaring one of the two entirely impossible is entirely subjective in interpretation and rank eisegesis.

[lorddunlow]

I've always interpreted it to be magic and advanced technology are essentially the same thing.

I always like to give my own semi-reciprocal restatement, actually:

"Any magic, sufficiently understood is science."

Sent from my Pixel Fold using Tapatalk

[ManofTheAtom]

Why would the burden of proof be wholly on the side of magic? Why is magic assumed to be impossible if there is the slimmest indicator that some fictional artifact has a technological origin? Especially when the creators clearly meant for these artifacts to have magical origins, like the dagger and the satchel. There are plausible technological explanations for these, yes, but those are possible explanations that do not and cannot exclude other possible origins of these artifacts. The truth is that explanations for these artifacts are not explained. The lesson of Clarke’s First Law is that anyone in fiction making those kinds of claims of certainty is due for a dose of hubris.

Does Clarke’s First Law only apply if it is vigorously proved not to contradict the Third? Arthur C. Clarke should have reversed those numbers!

Just because Asimov wrote laws of robotics doesn’t mean that stories are not written where those laws are violated. Even in stories that cite those laws of robotics, sometimes robots go freewill.

Only siths deal in absolutes.

"If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

Before we declare that something is absolutely magical, we should first disprove that it can be technological, especially when time travel and futuristic technology are thrown into the mix.

How many times did Ivar travel to the past carrying something from the future with him that he just left there and didn't bother to destroy?

If he could, for instance, abandon a 1985 Sony Walkman in 33 A.D., why can't he, likewise, abandon a dagger from the 51st Century or a satchel from the 105th Century in 2 B.C.?

Which are the horses andwhich the zebras? The analogy is deeply flawed because the ratio of the likelihood of magical vs. technological origins is much closer than the ratio of populations between horses and zebras in NorthAm.

I do not deny the possibility that these could be technological artifacts but I am skeptical. Magical origins seem more likely and seem more consistent with the intent of the author. Neither is stated explicitly - they probably did not think it was necessary - so declaring one of the two entirely impossible is entirely subjective in interpretation and rank eisegesis.

But which authors' intent takes precedent; the ones that created the universe, like Shooter, or those that followed them?

Whether its artifacts like the blade and satchel, or necromantic energy, if there is a real world scientific explanation, should it not be explored?

If Shooter intended to include magic at VALIANT, that would be present in Shadowman. How specifically was it treated there? Was it accepted as merely magic, or were there attempts to ground it in real science?

Dinesh and Jordan tried to in the VEI version when they had Dox explicitly cite Clarke's third law to Jack.

[ManofTheAtom]

I've always interpreted it to be magic and advanced technology are essentially the same thing.

I always like to give my own semi-reciprocal restatement, actually:

"Any magic, sufficiently understood is science."

Sent from my Pixel Fold using Tapatalk

Nice.