So, yeah. That. Or This.

[lagilman]

Some day I will learn not to get hard science in my fantasy. This duology? Ain't that.

And I'm trying to lead my characters where I need them to go, and none of them are scientists and the science isn't the point, the realization is the point, and so this morning I came up with the following:



“So magic is actually a thing.”

The jiniri put down her own sandwich, and looked at the human, waiting for more context. “Yes.”

“But it’s a thing you can’t manipulate directly. No supernatural can?”

“It depends on how you define manipulate. Or directly.”

“Or is?”

“What?” Galilia looked at her in confusion, while [betasuper] coughed into his hand, grinning.

“Never mind. Go on. Magic is an actual thing, but…”

“Less a thing than a force. No, not a force. You can manipulate a force, influence it. This is… ”

“Like maths,” Glory said. “We assign a value to things, and we manipulate them, but we’re not really changing it, just how we perceive it. Like time.”

“Time?”

“Time isn’t real.”

“What do you mean, time isn’t real?”

Glory shifted in her chair, aware that messing with the perceptions of human co-workers might be a safer game than doing the same with supernaturals. Jan had warned her that the preters, at least, didn’t like having to see things a new way.

“Okay, time is real. But it’s real because we’re putting labels on something so that our brains can comprehend it. There’s a theory, and never mind the theory because that’s way off track but my point was-“ and she’d had a point, she knew that – “magic is like time. It is, but we can only label it, not manipulate it. Not really. But there are things that can, maybe, mess with time. Real time, and or perception of it.”

Glory’s brain hurt. She was good at practical things, solid things like maths and coding, not theoretical physics.

“Except some humans can.”

“What?”

“Some humans can manipulate it. Witches.”

“There are witches?”

“Maybe?” Galilia looked uncertain, which was unusual. “I’ve never actually met one.”

“Bet I have.” Glory frowned. “And I bet Jan has, too. Or knows someone who has. That’s where she’s gone, both of them. Lay odds on it.”

“So what does that have to do with us figuring out how the preters are using technology?”

“Because I’m not sure they are. Using it, I mean. Not the way you use glamor, as an active thing, or even the way they’re using portals. I think magic is like time. We’ve been trying to figure out how they’re USING it, when we should be asking how they SEE it.”



And I ask you, oh readers - does that make any sense, even without surrounding context? Does the handwaving convince you? Or have I just blown a lot of smoke up my own plot?

Comments

[kateyule.livejournal.com]

Works for me.

Not that I follow it, entirely, but the fact that it's over my head doesn't interfere with me accepting its existence for the characters. (A leap of faith made constantly in the real world. Ask David how many times he's explained solstices to me. Or RAM.)

I as the reader now believe that there IS a timey-wimey magicness thing and that it's sorta sideways to how we usually think of magic. Check.

I would, however, hope that this sidewaysness (a) continues to figure in the plot and (b) becomes a bit more clear through example.

[elsceetaria.livejournal.com]

It makes sense to me, but then again I have studied the ideas used a little. It might not make as much sense to someone who hasn't read as many odd texts and articles as I have.

Also, hard science in fantasy is amazing!

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

It works for me, too.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Works for me.

[kradical.livejournal.com]

FWIW, it makes -- well, not sense, exactly, but I had no trouble following the conversation. :)

[isabeau.livejournal.com]

Works for me, yeah.

[rosefox]

It probably makes sense but I don't get the feeling of it serving any narrative purpose. In a book I'd probably skim it.

hrm

[lagilman]

Since the (very spoilery) context around it makes it clear that this is in fact pretty damn important, hopefully in-context people won't skim....

(short of putting arrows and blinking lights saying "pay attention to the plot reveal," not sure what else I can do),

Re: hrm

[rosefox]

My skimming is probably not like most people's, in that I file entire chunks of exposition, character development, etc. under "ah, that's what type of book this is", internally summarize, and move on. The perils of being a professional book-dismantler.

In this case I'd file the conversation under "in this universe magic is about 1/3 of the way along the spectrum from 'I could show you the blueprints' to 'Just made it up'" and not read closely beyond that, but again, I'm not a typical reader.

[merlinpole.livejournal.com]

"She was good at practical things, solid things like maths and coding, not theoretical physics" bounced my willing suspension of disbelief.

Theoretical physics is basically pure mathematics (spinors, wave functions/eigenfunctions, linear algebra, Hamiltonians, group theory....) Experimental physics gets into things which are less theoretical and more material/practical/pragmatic/approximate. Pure mathematics is not practical "Pure mathematics, may it never be of use to anyone!" -- toast in an Arthur C. Clarke story.

Engineering tends to be solid (electrical engineering graduate level classes, involve lots of theoretical math, and a lot less reality/concrete stuff), but math??! It's non-concrete. Applied math gets practical because it's applied, pure math exists referring almost entirely to iptself in perfect stark isolation. Theoretical physics is much the same. Dirac came up with electron spin manipulating equations, with electron spin "falling out" as a result, and his comment on the subject was "This is beautiful, therefore it must be true."

[natmerc.livejournal.com]

Umm...

Everyone manipulates forces to some degree, but when you do so, you need to input something -- could be potential energy by a change in position (letting gravity "work" by having an object fall and taking it's potential energy "stored" due to it's height and changing it to motion-energy, i.e. kinetic as it gets faster -- you don't see any forces, but they're there). When we exert a physical force, e.g. a punch, we get the energy to move our muscles from chemical reactions from stored potential energy from the sun (e.g. burning carbohydrates).

You can definitely call magic a way of gathering energy that's non-visible and non-explainable with current physics theories. Lots of people believe there's more dimensions than we can process with our brains and it could be something with that. Or something with dark energy or dark matter (huge progress in that though -- very fast moving field since 1990s).

Boils down to --> force =/= energy but one needed for the next.

I think you can say anything you want about time. I'm of the personal opinion that it doesn't really exist anyway, that all moments occur simultaneously, and it's just a processing factor as we have mass.

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

Personally, unless it has to do with your plot, I'd use light instead of time as an example--wave and particle, both. The time discussion struck me as a bit draggy. On the order of "As you know, Bob..."

But that's just me, and I know nothing.

[natf.livejournal.com]

Not only does it make sense, but I want to know more! ;-p

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

Works for me - I'm not sure it makes sense, but neither do explanations of quantum mechanics, and this strikes me as being on a level with that. If I read it in the actual book, I'd probably just take it on board as a Thing, and I would feel that the author had provided an explanation - that's enough for me.

[msdori.livejournal.com]

because that’s way off track but my point was-“ and she’d had a point, she knew that

I like this one. *G*