I realize that we have a lot of threads on magical theory and shit, but I haven't seen this discussed specifically and I've seen several mentions of things that bug the shit out of me, so I decided I'd try to set my head on straight (and hopefully some other peoples' too).

Section 1: Magic must be self-consistent.

This is mostly a response to all those comments saying "magic doesn't have to be logical" or "magic doesn't have to make sense". Well, that's a really bad way of phrasing things. Magic doesn't necessarily have to follow any recognizable pattern of behavior, but it is both more likely and easier to believe that it does, regardless of whether magic is "natural" or "artificial". Furthermore, as the title states, magic must be self-consistent - it cannot both be capable of doing something and not capable of doing that thing at the same time. This makes the "food" principal exception to Gamp's Law rather difficult to believe.

Observe.
Proposition: Food-material cannot be created out of not-food-material (including nothingness).
Proposition: Food-material can be increased in quantity.

These statements are contradictory in almost all scenarios. The only possible conclusion that can be drawn from this is that it is impossible to conjure or transfigure certain molecular structures. If this is true, it is almost certainly a result of Intelligent Design - either on the part of the creator of magic, or on the part of an intelligent source of magic itself. In both cases, it's an arbitrary and stupid limitation.

Section 2: Magic must be consistent with the universe.

Do not confuse this with "Magic must follow the laws of physics". This is simply stating that magic cannot achieve end-results (effects) that are not within the confines of how our universe operates. A levitation spell may "ignore" gravity, but a human can pick up a feather. On the other hand, magic cannot allow a human to perceive ultra-violet (for example) without altering their eyes and brain. Saying "magic did it" is not an acceptable answer. Why? Because the universe (existence) is self-consistent and it does not allow for humans to see ultra-violet in their current state. There is no way for them to be both capable and incapable of seeing ultra-violet at the same time.

Edit: A more abstract illustration of this principle would be to imagine the universe as a giant program. Magic may be able to create new variables, new functions, or, hell, even delete them, but it can't do things that are outside the bounds of the language that the universe is written in. (Unless, of course, the universe is a sandbox contained within the realm where magic exists, in which case the entire thing can be rewritten in a different language.)

Section 3: Wtf?

I'm not going to even get into stupid shit like the Goblet of Fire because the only possible conclusion I can draw is that magic is both intelligent (capable of abstract qualification and identification) and easily fooled. Scenario: What if there were two people named Harry Potter who looked the same and acted the same (at least superficially) and a third party wrote their name down and entered it? Would it pick one at random? Would magic pluck the identity of the desired Harry Potter from the person's head?

Yeah. RAGE.

 

RE: Goblet of Fire; it's been my assumption that Harry's name was entered by ripping off a corner of his homework with the signature. It therefore would be a genuine signature of the prospective entrant, and Crouch Jr. only needed to Confundus the Goblet into categorizing it as a valid fourth-school's only entrant.

How the Goblet chose between candidates suggests that some sort of spirit or intelligence has been trapped in the thing since its creation.

This also explains how a Confundus would affect it at all.

 

That's a fine explanation. I won't really nitpick on the "intent" of the written signature and subsequent binding.

 

This is just straight up dumb. First of all, the fact that humans can't see ultraviolet is in fact, due to physical laws. It's due to eye shape, and brain structure. Why the hell could magic not temporarily alter those so that you can perceive ultra-violet? It allows you to change your entire body into an animal. The idea that it makes you both "capable and incapable is just wrong." It alters things so that you are capable.

Physical laws are the confines of how our universe operates. If magic can't operate outside of those confines, you're back to saying magic is bounded by the laws of nature. Which it clearly isn't.

Moreover your post points out several examples where canon magic just doesn't follow your system. So it's clear that this isn't how it works. It may be how you want it to work, and feel free to create a system that works like this. But it isn't how HP magic works.

 

And then after they're altered back, you can no longer perceive it in memory? Ok...

As for the last thing, you seem to have missed the entire point. My contention is that if magic operates within the confines of our universe, it can't do or create things that aren't possible in our universe. Do you really not understand? Floating a feather creates an effect that already exists in our universe (lifting a feather manually). Conjuring a chair creates an object that already exists, or is capable of existing in our universe (a chair).

 

Why would you no longer be able to see it in memory. Your mind would remember seeing the ultra violet light as it saw it at the time. Unless the spell intentionally takes away what it looked like. Then it would be useless because you couldn't recall what you saw or be able to give an accurate description afterwards.

 

If your brain reverts back to something that can't process ultra-violet after the spell ends, how would you remember it?

 

Because your mind remembers things as you think you saw the memory. If I see in ultra violent light and that's how I recall it even after I stop seeing in ultra violent I will remember seeing the image like that.

Have you ever looked into a light and had sun spots in your eyes? You will notice that even after the spots go away you will remember seeing the spots in the memory. Just because they go away doesn't mean you will never remember what it looks like again.

 

...your brain cannot "understand" ultra-violet light without being changed. Unless the spell permanently changes it, you won't be able to understand it in a memory either.

 

You obviously don't understand how seeing in different spectrum of lights works. Our eyes are not wired to see in the other spectrum so we have tools that allow us to see them. When we see them we have that mental image. We see the different colors and remember "Wow this is what object 1 looks like in ultra violet light." When stop seeing in ultra violet light we don't just forget what things looked like in a different light spectrum.




That is in ultra violet light. Though according to your theory your brain can't comprehend those images because they are in ultra violet light. Though since you can see them explain to me how that works in your theory that our brains can't see ultra violet light. I would also like you to explain how some things can only be seen under ultra violet light.
Like how it is used to look at chemicals even after they have been cleaned on the surface. Or how the bird on the credit card below can only been seen when under UV lighting.

 

Eyes and minds that see ultraviolet exist and are capable of existing in our universe. I fail to see the difference. And again, what is capable of existing in our universe is dictated by the laws of physics. To use your own analogy of a program "Magic may be able to create new variables, new functions, or, hell, even delete them, but it can't do things that are outside the bounds of the language that the universe is written in." Physical laws are the bounds of the language the universe is written in.

 

Stop using science and physics. The rules and exeptions of magic aren't based on that. They're based on what they're creator felt they should be like. If you want to make a comparison, you're better off going with something like "You aren't allowed to step on the black tiles, because they are lava and you will die. However, you are allowed to step on the black tiles if you can't reach to white tiles, because then the lave will be away for a moment."

You're not going to aply physics to those rules to see if they're logical, because physics has nothing to do with it. Magic exists outside of that and it works the way it works, because that's the way it works.

If I look through a microscope, I can suddenly see things I can't see with the naked eye. Should that be impossible, because you can't be both capable and incapable of seeing those things?

Anyway, in that case magic would be some kind of tool, which is usually not how it works. Magic isn't some kind of scope that you see through, to watch someone's memories and thoughts when you use Legillimancy. It simply allows one to do it, without any kind of tool. And yeah, that does work outside of the confines of how our universe operates, because there's nothing in our universe that allows that. But that's just the thing isn't it? Magic doesn't follow any rules but its own, no mather what logic may demand. Magic only has a very limited internal logic, which is nothing more than "Magic has certain rules and those rules are followed". But when you try to aply logic between those rules, you'll quickly fail, because the only thing that combines them is the mind that made them up.

We've all seen the Sorting Hat, so we know it's possible to create some kind of intelligence. Whether or not it's easy to fool in this case is a different question. I don't think there are many wizards with a Confundus Charm strong enough to fool the Goblet into believing that Harry submitted his name for a fourth school. Others think Crouch Jr. only magically tricked it into believing the fourth school part, which means tricking it into accepting someone else's name is very easy.

And the Goblet will always know who is meant when a name is entered, because that's its purpose and that's all you need to know really. That's just how it works.[/QUOTE]

 

Holy shit, guys, rage more. Seriously, if you aren't even going to read what I wrote, then bugger off.

 

1. Yes, Gamp's law does seem like a pretty arbitrary limitation.
Perhaps food increase isn't necessarily food creation. Maybe it screws around with DNA and forces the cells to undergo mitosis all the while protecting telomeres or the chromosomes themselves during division.
/Not a geneticist/biologist

2. You may be right on this one, but your point isn't very clear.
Lion, that's a bit different than seeing the sun with eyes that can perceive a broader visible spectrum. Some telescope probably filtered out the other wavelengths of light that the sun emits and captured that image, then rendered it in the visible spectrum.

Blood and semen are within the visible spectrum. When they are not thoroughly cleaned up, they leave residue. Aforementioned fluids fluoresce under UV light but they do not emit UV light themselves.
/Not a physicist/forensic scientist

OT: If you strike a man blind, would he be able to understand an image that he saw before he lost his eyes?
Or, if you looked at something, let's say a sock, and never saw it again, would you still be able to perceive it?
/Not a philosopher

3. Yeah. WTF at Sections 1,2,3, etc.

Perhaps we're all missing the entire point of this thread. Care to remind us?

What are you trying to set people's minds straight about?

Are you asserting an intelligent designer or ascribing sentience to magic?

Why must magic be self-consistent and consistent with the universe? Why can't it be completely arbitrary, inconsistent and idiosyncratic?

My brain is full of fuck. Good night.

/inb4 Taure;dr

 

No.

Your argument amounts to "magic doesn't exist IRL".

There are so many ways in which you are wrong I'm not even going to bother.

 

Inb4 Taur- damn to late.

 

U mad bro?

Throw stupid shit on the screen and people are gonna tell you it's stupid. Don't like it then gtfo of DLP. You should really know that by now.

 

Heh. As a fan of "hard" magic (as dubbed by Brandon Sanderson in this essay-- btw, recommended read for those interested in magic systems), I couldn't keep away from this thread for too long, even if I know a large part of DLP to not tolerate that too much. While I too find it interesting to think about how HP magic could be interpreted for it to resemble hard magic, I disagree with the OP on several points.

I'd group that together with general internal consistency in a fictional work; magical systems are no different in this aspect from any other elements of a story.

I prefer to think of it as extremely difficult rather than unachievable. My meagre knowledge of organic chemistry leads me to believe prepared food is pretty damn complex structurally, at a microscopic level, and the matter is much less organized than it was inside the organisms it used to be part of (which is probably why you can transfigure stuff into edible plants and animals, but not directly into food). Perhaps it is a feat which hasn't been previously achieved in the wizarding world, which may be why it is considered impossible.

Now, the tricky thing is that gold, which has a much simpler structure, cannot be obtained through conjuration or transfiguration either, but I'm inclined to believe that this is due more to the fact that it's likely illegal to do so, for obvious economic reasons.

Now that's a tad too limiting. Magic shouldn't be restricted to toying with what there already is and only skipping one or two links in a given causal chain. By definition, magic can undo physical laws and bind reality to the will of a magical being, which in itself allows for a much greater range of effects than you appear to accept as believable. Indeed, achieving a result which is significantly foreign from everyday human experience must require a particularly talented wizard who knows exactly what he's doing, but it's not unimaginable. If I were to take your example, I wouldn't doubt that a sufficiently talented wizard would be capable of creating a spell or a magical object which would allow the human user to see ultraviolet light. Changing eye or brain structure only skips very few links in the causal chain, essentially leaving the physical laws which concern vision intact. And if a wizard can overwrite or ignore the physical laws that prevent eye or brain structure from changing, especially if the change is made from afar, what prevents him from tackling the way light itself works within the required area? (Also, if I recall correctly, there are jinxes which can transform the target's body parts into vegetables or stuff, without being particularly harmful or providing the victim with a particularly otherworldly experience-- the point being, structure isn't everything where magic is concerned.)

The interpretation of magic as a sort of "programming" of reality is my favorite, too, but I'm not exactly sure what you want to say here. Do you mean that magic cannot be used to operate with things which are not to be found in this universe, not even as theoretical possibilities, or regardless of the missing links in causal chains?

But that's like saying that nature or the universe is itself intelligent and/or easily fooled only because part of it (i.e. humans) have these traits. Magic is largely what wizards make of it. It's just that wizards can use magic to create artifacts which share some of their intellectual capabilities.

/goes off to sleep

 

I personally like the hard magic idea that magic needs to be internally consistent as well. Sadly JKR didn't write like that, probably because it was a kids story and by the time she realized that she'd written several inconsistency's they'd been published and trying to fix them just looked like an ass-pull. As such the rules of HP magic seem to be you can do what ever you want except when you can't.

 

That's actually the general rule I live by.