The way I see it, at the most basic level there are three ways to depict magic.

1. The Unified Natural Universe (Science magic)

In this view, magic is a part of the natural universe, a phenomenon like gravity, electromagnetism, etc. It may be an unknown aspect of physics, but fundamentally magic is a part of the same system and is subject to laws which do not contradict current understanding of how the universe works (such as the laws of thermodynamics).

2. The Unified Supernatural Universe (Alternate science magic)

In this view, magic is a part of the natural universe, but the natural universe is not what scientists think it is. Rather, current science is completely incorrect in its description of the way the universe works, and the universe in essentially supernatural in nature, operating on the basis of e.g. an offshoot of medieval alchemy rather than modern chemistry.

The success of modern science would be explained in the same way as the success of Newtonian mechanics is explained, post-Einstein: it was an approximation of the actual state of affairs which worked only so long as you restricted your domain of enquiry to those phenomena it worked for.

Just as Newtonian explanations break down when you get to high velocities, so too would chemistry break down when you encounter magic. Crucially, it's not that chemistry is normally right and then is suspended when magic comes into play. Rather it's that the fundamental way all matter works is described by the magical theory of matter, and non-magical chemistry just so happens to generate accurate predictions in some cases.

3. The Dualist Universe (Cheat code magic)

In this view, the universe operates on two parallel systems. There is the natural system (the universe as described by physics), and the supernatural system. The natural system is the "default" system on which the universe operates. However, in certain circumstances, the supernatural system can be engaged, which overrules the natural system and suspends its rules in favour of those of the supernatural, for a limited time and space.

Question: which of these systems do you think the HP magic system fits into? Which system do you prefer in fanfic?

 

I'm prefer option 3. I think science (in the totality of our current knowledge about the universe kind of sense) is too distinct from the conceptual magic from canon to share the same unified theory. The way both wizards and muggles do their thing, each with their distinct sets of rules and predictable, repeatable and reproductive effects, yet are both ignorant to the other side of the equation does not lend itself to thinking these systems share toys.

I've an anthropocentric view on canon magic. My head-canon is that reality in the HP-verse has two layers, the physical and magical, which don't naturally interact. Humans would be exceptional as they possess a physical and magical body (the soul), allowing some of them to act as a bridge, thus allowing for magical rules influence physical reality. Under this precept, every magical beast and plant would have it's origin as a human creation, deliberate or accidental. Something that at least wouldn't completely break life's evolutionary history, like would magical critters popping out for millions of years with their nonsensical anatomy and broken evolutionary advantages.

 

I suppose I tend to view HP magic as operating under a combination of 1 and 3. But Rowling leaves things so open to interpretation that it’s hard to characterize canon HP magic as a whole.

That said, I’ve always gravitated towards the sort of thing we saw in @Newcomb ’s What You Leave Behind. Magic is a fundamental force of the universe that doesn’t always show itself, but when it does, it actively defies specific description. It can be nonspecifically described as a relatively local breakdown or major alteration of the laws of physics that also simultaneously exists everywhere as part of everything.

I don’t remember the specific wording, but Dumbledore asks Harry a question in WYLB that kind of sums it up me: “How does a transfigured rock know how to be a mouse?”

 

4. Narrative Universe

In this system, magic works as needed to get the plot exactly where the author wants. HP happens at a school of magic, which implies magic can be taught, i.e., there is some kind of method to it. But the main plot is driven by a bunch of assorted asspulls with no rhyme or reason to them, like sacrificial magic, hallows, etc.

 

I feel like 2 and, particularly three are just derivatives of 1.

Third option is that there's a natural force and a supernatural force that overides the natural one. But how do you make the distinction? Yes, wizards can "defy" physics but they do that by using magic, a force which they, for the most part, do understand. Yes, you can fly with magic but you can also fly with "science" (Plane, jetpack and whatever else). Yes, the argument can be that you're using physics so you're staying within the rules but why isn't magic just considered another subset of science?

I feel like I'm doing a terrible job of putting it into words and saying "Magic is just science we don't understand yet" feels far too simplistic though I suppose the basic essence is right.

 

@Agent Zero

It looks like you're aiming at "any sufficientlymadvanced technology", where in Potterverse magic is the sufficiently advanced technology that supplants muggle science. I disagree.

Firstly, it implies that with sufficient understanding, any muggle could become a wizard, which as far as we know is not possible. You're a wizard or you aren't. You can do magic or you can't.

Secondly, 2 & 3 aren't derivatives of 1. What you described is 1, 2 is a derivative of that, but 3 is different. 3 says that no matter how advanced muggle science becomes, magic will be able to overcome it. Magic is GodMode, not a currently unavailable to muggles advancement of science, but something separate to science.

 

I really have to agree with @cucio. Unlikely authors like Sanderson/Brooks/Jordan, Rowling isn't driven by the desire to create a functioning universes as much as she is to create a functioning story.
So while "Narrative Universe" is perhaps a bit uncharitable, I'd argue that, in universe, a better name is Chaos Universe.

In this scenario, magic warps itself to reflect the desires of its users. Plotholes can easily be explained as magic shifting the universe to reflect the needs of the moment. This ties into the ideas of love and imagination being such powerful magic. It's not quantifiable as any of the above.

 

No idea which system Rowling envisioned, if she did so at all. But cucio's option is the one I prefer in fanfic, for variety's sake if nothing else. A little bit of world-building is part of every fic, and part of the fun is figuring out which aspects of magic to emphasize for the sake of the story. That results in a lot of shitfics where something is OP (goblins, magical cores, oaths, etc.), but it also leaves the author a lot of room to maneuver. That wouldn't be the case if Rowling had thoroughly explained everything.

 

I don't really think that this can be the deciding factor on if something is considered "advanced technology" or not. That's not really the phrase I want to use as it doesn't fit the current situation but I've had like 6 hours of sleep in the last 3 days and my mind is turning to mush.

I'm going to use an example from another fandom even though I know it makes my argument weaker. If we look at most superheroes, they have powers that modern science can't replicate except we don't call it magic, we just accept it for what is.

Using a real world example, there are some animals that can regrow major limbs. We don't call it magic but we ourselves can't yet replicate that feat on a large scale.

To be honest, I wasn't entirely sure what Option 3 was and made assumptions, that's my fault. Looking at your explanation, it makes a bit more sense.

I don't think it would be Option 3 as we've never really seen magic performed on such a scale before (Though feel free to refresh my memory).

 

@Agent Zero

Proof of HP magic being 3? How about the way Transfiguration taking a big shit on thermodynamics? Scale has nothing to do with it. Or literal teleportation. Or animagi and conservation of energy.

 

The distinction between 1/2 and 3 is between a universe which runs on a single set of laws and a universe which runs on two mutually exclusive sets of laws.

The difference between 1 and 2 is between the character of the laws in question in a unitary universe. In 1 they are like science as we understand it. In 2 they include things like "love" and "bravery".

Essentially:

1: there is no magic, only physics.

2: there is no physics, only magic.

3: there is both physics and magic; the latter overrides the former.

 

I think I'm starting to realise that this discussion may be a bit beyond me (I pretty much cheated my BTEC Science back in school) and I'm out of my depth but I'm gonna give it a shot anyway.

In those scenarios, the rules would have to be modified to allow for the presence of magic. When these rules/laws were proven, magic had not been taken into account.

I feel like if it was either 1 or 2, wouldn't they be considered the same? What makes both scenarios different from one another? What is the fundamental difference between magic governing the universe and a higher form of physics governing the universe? What is the tangible difference between the two? In Option 3, how are we differentiating between the two and know which one occurs when?

 

I can start to see how 1 and 2 are the same, though all three of them are fundamentally similar. For the purposes of this response I would say 2 basically states that the universe follows the laws of magic, and the central problem with that is that the laws of magic are not written down anywhere. Generously, Rowling would not want to confine herself to such things, instead we get bits and pieces like Gamp's Law of Transfiguration, explained in universe by the fact that the characters do not know the laws of magic, if they exist. She most likely wrote the series with something like 3 in mind. 1 or 2 would leave weird little holes in the nonmagical understanding of the universe that would have to be painstakingly covered up by memory charms.

 

@Agent Zero

Hopefully this explains Taure's OP better:

Spoiler: see image

@Taure correct me if I got your reasoning wrong

 

Ditto, except i don't even remember Science class let alone any tests i might have taken.

I think that Science is wrong in their perception of the world because it doesn't allow for magic which is a natural force, however i dont think that necessarily means that the universe is essentially supernatural.

I believe that canon magic is a natural force which supersedes certain forces and laws of physics, but not laws of nature that are not rooted in physics. Canon Magic can't make a dead person alive, can't let a human function without oxygen (drought of living death?) or without a body, stopping a magical heart will kill him the same way it kills a muggle.

In summary, while magic is a natural force that does override specific aspects of the natural world, it is still incorrect to accuse scientists of being completely wrong about the universe because outside of magic everything is truly governed by the other laws of nature.

i thought i had something new, but upon reflection this is in essence view 1, trust @Taure to have covered everything!

 

On reflection, it seems to be quite hard to to maintain the distinction between the three categories. Science itself does not have a unified theory of everything, and we don't know what room (if any) would be left for magic if one such theory was found.

Arguendo, we frequently see the laws of physics as we know it defied. I suppose this means it is unlikely to fit into (1), viz. that it does not seem likely that scientists will find a magiton like they might one day find a graviton.

Now, between (2) and (3) I would say that there is not enough evidence. The universe (and magic) might well operate on a system of natural laws, but I do not recall any evidence in the books that suggests the wizards know this magical theory of everything. I would therefore say that wizards themselves act as if the universe is (3).

However, it is not inconceivable that the universe is actually (2) and it is fine for fan fiction to assume so. After all, muggles would normally see the world as based on Newtonian physics, even if there is a dim awareness that relativity and quantum mechanics are more (if still not quite) complete models of the universe. Similarly, I do not see why Hogwarts would require deep and complex studies of magic if it is not needed for the kind of magic they are likely to need in their life. Maybe in-universe alchemy is an all-transcending study of magics that are impossible to explain using the theory of less complete models such as charms, transfiguration and potions?

 

Ultimately I think 2 is the fascinating from a purely theoretical standpoint because it means that Muggles are Newtonian physicists trying to create the quantum computer without an understanding of how their own "laws" and theories break down upon a true examination of the universe. I imagine most wizards wouldn't give a rat's ass about this distinction, nor about what the Muggles are doing with tech and such, but imo it would be cool to explore. One question I'd have is: if wizards have a more complete understanding of such a universe, would they run into a difficulty of practicality? Because under the 2nd option, that means what Muggles know would be functionally useful still. Newtonian physics don't stop being valid in certain circumstances and---for most people---on a general basis. So from the general wizard's perspective, it'd be like a quantum physicist that wasn't aware of Newtonian physics at all beyond the basic three laws. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I think it's cool in theory.

From a canon perspective, I think it's 3. Magic doesn't seem to interact in any way with Muggle systems besides overriding them. And honestly some of the least tolerable fics are the ones trying to mesh them together while not actually, which is option 1.

 

My problem with any idea that somehow meshes real world natural laws and Harry Potter canon magic is that what we see of magic is totally chaotic and has nothing that even closely resembles a unifying theory. Or are we supposed to believe that "you can't transfigure food" is a natural law on par and overruling the laws of thermodynamics, and that there are fundamental natural forces that make sure that there are exactly twelve uses for dragon blood, one of which is as an oven cleaner?

Of course it's possible that wizards themselves don't truly understand magic any more than muggles do, and are more closely similar to Aristotle than Newton in comparison to the "real truth". I.e, can produce effects in some cases, but are totally wrong on the actual causes.

 

I really like 2, but I think what was shown in the books is mostly 3. It could really be either. What was that Rowling quote? "Magic can override the mundane"?

In fanfics, I don't really care which system I get, I mostly care that it's canon-friendly. No magical cores. No magical exhaustion. No 'wands as guns'. I find myself constantly surprised how difficult it's for people to get the HP magic right.