(no subject)

[zwol]

Clarke's third law should be read normatively, not descriptively.

Discuss.

Comments

[xorphus.livejournal.com]

So "if a technology is indistinguishable from magic, it is sufficiently advanced?"

[xorphus.livejournal.com]

Or "if and only if," maybe.

[zwol.livejournal.com]

You can still read that descriptively. rysmiel's formulation downthread is rather more what I had in mind. (My original thought was along the lines of If your technology is still distinguishable from magic, you're not done advancing it.)

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

Any technology distinguishable from magic is not yet sufficiently advanced ?

The problem here is akin to that with the Turing Test, in that it measures the observer as much as it does the phenomenon. [ An ATM is passing a Turing Test if a little old lady thanks it after the transaction, and who hasn't seen that happen ? ]

[zwol.livejournal.com]

Any technology distinguishable from magic is not yet sufficiently advanced ?

Just so.

...it measures the observer as much as it does the phenomenon.

This is a problem, but I think it just means the goalpost may be moved without notice. (C.f. any number of stories in which the godlike aliens no longer seem so godlike after the protagonists figure out what the trick is. Come to think of it, is The Wonderful Wizard of Oz the original example?)

But then, contrast Pratchett's observation (in Wee Free Men, I think) that it doesn't stop being magic just because you know how it's done. ('course, the "you" here is a witch.)

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Along the lines of Florence's corollary(from "Freefall" by Mark Stanley)? (Yes, I love that comic.) Well, you can handle that the same way you can handle the Turing Test – with careful judging.