Whereas I'm more likely to say that "which is to say" is more a relation of entailment than equivalence.

"Into non-being, which is to say everything" to me means "Into non-being, which entails into everything".

You misunderstand. I'm not saying magical phenomena don't have to be explained because they're magical. I'm saying that we already possess the explanation: magic.

 

I propose that magic may not follow laws of science, but it does follow laws of magic.

For instance, one law of magic is that every time a wand is used against a brother wand there will be a Priori Incantatum effect. This can be rigorously tested and proven according to the scientific method.

Another law is that the words Avada Kadavra always result, under the proper conditions, with a flash of green light which causes death.

It is not unreasonable to believe that there is a law of magic which dictates that a Protego shield will break when a certain amount of energy is directed at it i.e. that of a building, or a nuclear bomb, or the explosion of the entire universe.

 

1. When brother wands meet, priori incantatum will result.

2. When the Killing Curse is cast successfully, X magical effects happen.

3. When the shield charm encounters energy of X amount, it will break.

One of these 3 things is not like the other.

1: Magic interacting with magic.
2. Magic interacting with magic.
3. Non-magic interacting with magic.

1 and 2 are examples of magical laws. 3 is not. It's about energy - a non-magical quantity, falling not under magical law but physical. It would be, at best, a quasi-magical law.

 

The one thing you certainly don't fail at is not making any consistent sense. I'd call troll, if I didn't know better.

Let us assume that "which is to say" indicates an equivalence here (I think this is fairly reasonable in this context). I don't see how you go from "being sent into non-being is equivalent to being sent into everything" to "everything is in a state of non-being". The only thing I can think of is that you truncated your proposition to "non-being is equivalent to everything", and then realising that didn't mean anything, arrived at "the state of non-being is equivalent to the state of everything". Which is incredibly stupid.

However, if we take the initial proposition in a way it could actually be interpreted, it makes some sort of sense: "being sent into non-being is equivalent to being sent into everything". Let us take, as an initial assumption, that everything "possesses" non-being, as Taure illustrated.

• "Being sent into non-being entails being sent into everything"

The first part of the equivalence is then trivially true: being sent into non-being necessarily entails being sent into everything.

• "Being sent into everything entails being sent into non-being"

Let's try a proof by contradiction. If you assume the existence of truly elementary particles, and that these particles are things, then being sent into everything while staying in a state of being means being all of those elementary particle, and therefore becoming everything. The problem here is pretty obvious.

The weekness comes from assuming particles as finitely small. If the opposite is possible, then don't see why it wouldn't be possible for things to be sent into everything and remain into being (my brain is fried though, it's 4 am). Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that's what happens. McGonagall's statement can still be interpreted literally and be plausibly true. She is the teacher in this particular field, after all.

Are you serious? Are you trying to give the troll new ammo, or do you just like to contradict yourself after each paragraph?

What about this explanation: technology fails when it encounters magic because they're paradigmatically incompatible. In other words, technology doesn't work because SHIT JUST STOPS BEHAVING RATIONNALLY.

 

Lawl, the point of the little chat about magically-influenced formulae was to show the scope of the problem. There were no contradictions in there. It's pretty much indisputable that magic casts an influence on electromagnetics: on top of the Muggle interference stuff, there's the simple fact that many spells generate light.

What's impossible is trying to quantitatively describe the interaction, because we lack the basic tools. What we're left with is a shitload of leeway, free to be interpreted according to anyone's individual mental wankery. The same is true when trying to explain magic's influence on other branches of real-world physics, of course.

That's sufficient for most cases, but is woefully inadequate for DLP Magic Theory Thread #271. Our assholes are larger, and therefore capable of ejecting more elaborate formations of bullshit.