It is magic because only magicians, or whatever magically inclined people are called, can do it. And no matter how many times you say it, I think the laws of magic are not part of the laws of physics, because the laws of magic do not exist in our world.
But we're not talking about our world, are we. If magic is real in that world, then that world's physics will allow it. Mystery has nothing to do with it--whether or not anyone in that world or this one knows it, if magic is real, it is allowed by the physics of that world. And if it's allowed by the physics of that world, then it will be part of that world's science. Which means that making any sort of distinction between "magic" and "science" (or "tehcnology") in a world where magic actually works just won't hold up to scrutiny. In a world where magic works, magic is science, and is technology.
You said somewhere else that magic, if it is repeatable, it loses its mystery and thus stop being magic. But it can't be repeated by just anyone. It can only be repeated by magicians. Non-magicians don't understand it, thus it retains its mystery.
No, the "mystery" thing is just another version of the argument that if it's not understood it's magic. Mystery has nothing to do with anything.
And there are plenty of things that are only repeatable by certain practitioners--music, writing, hunting, cooking. Knitting. Does the fact that you (an undefined you, I have no idea of your knowledge of music) don't understand music theory and have never played an instrument make the Beatles magic?
It does not. Music is not magic. Knitting is not magic.
Once again, mystery is not the least bit applicable--and it's actually part of your definition, not mine. By your argument, anything "unknown" to anyone, anything any given person can't explain, is magic. If that's the case, then Clarke's law applies--"magic" is only a word for technology that a given person doesn't understand. It has nothing whatsoever to do with transcending, or breaking, or superseding or being superimposed on any universe's laws of physics.
no subject
But we're not talking about our world, are we. If magic is real in that world, then that world's physics will allow it. Mystery has nothing to do with it--whether or not anyone in that world or this one knows it, if magic is real, it is allowed by the physics of that world. And if it's allowed by the physics of that world, then it will be part of that world's science. Which means that making any sort of distinction between "magic" and "science" (or "tehcnology") in a world where magic actually works just won't hold up to scrutiny. In a world where magic works, magic is science, and is technology.
You said somewhere else that magic, if it is repeatable, it loses its mystery and thus stop being magic. But it can't be repeated by just anyone. It can only be repeated by magicians. Non-magicians don't understand it, thus it retains its mystery.
No, the "mystery" thing is just another version of the argument that if it's not understood it's magic. Mystery has nothing to do with anything.
And there are plenty of things that are only repeatable by certain practitioners--music, writing, hunting, cooking. Knitting. Does the fact that you (an undefined you, I have no idea of your knowledge of music) don't understand music theory and have never played an instrument make the Beatles magic?
It does not. Music is not magic. Knitting is not magic.
Once again, mystery is not the least bit applicable--and it's actually part of your definition, not mine. By your argument, anything "unknown" to anyone, anything any given person can't explain, is magic. If that's the case, then Clarke's law applies--"magic" is only a word for technology that a given person doesn't understand. It has nothing whatsoever to do with transcending, or breaking, or superseding or being superimposed on any universe's laws of physics.