If we want an answer to the question, we should probably look at Snape vs Dumbledore/Voldemort/Grindelwald.

He's the only character we see showing mastery approaching the titans, albeit at a limited number of fields.

Marauders and Lily are suggestive, but not really presented in the books.

The only difference between Snape and the DGVs is the number of fields they excel at, and I don't think Snape is inferior to the rest in intellect or understanding (see conversations with Dumbledore) (I'll leave personality alone here). He can match or surpass these wizards at the fields he does excel in (potions, mind magic).

I reasoned this to mean there's a variable magic, but it's a quality that determines your aptitude. I went with the complex option as well, because intellect, personality, etc. do influence magic.

 

Anything that can explain a person's skillset with magic can be better explained by personality/natural aptitudes than the idea that magic is some variable where some people have more and other's have less.

 

Natural aptitude is the "variable" in my argument for variable magic and it is qualitative .

 

I don't really see the canon argument for that. Let's take a look at the actual question:

"Is there such a thing as "Magical power" as a real attribute that wizards possess in different values (aka variable magic power), or is magic something you either have or not, with the difference between wizards being down entirely down to knowledge, skill, technique etc. (Aka binary magical power)?"

There's nothing in canon that points to a magical attribute power up. Anytime we see characters get "stronger" it's always a result of factors aside from magic itself.

Neville > Gaining Confidence in himself
Ron on a Broom > Confidence from "luck"
Harry with Patronus > Intense emotion
Wizards getting stronger over time> Knowledge and practice.
Molly killing bellatrix > Mother's love
Dumbledore/Voldemort> Really smart wizards, not something intrinsically different in their "magic."

The closest difference we see that challenges these points are love magic like Lily protecting Harry, but even that can be argued to be a subset of magical knowledge, not anything inherently special about Harry.

 

Arthellion you're arguing against the "variable power + basic attribute" but thinking you are arguing against "variable power + complex attribute". The point of the "complex variable power" position is that all those attributes you reference *do* determine magical ability. But they determine it as the inputs of a function which has the output of persistent magical power, rather than the inputs of a function which has an output of occasional magical power.

And tbh I just fundamentally disagree with you re your bare denial of the GOF scenes. They contain a direct observation of a person's magical power, exuded by their person not by any spell they cast. I feel those scenes speak for themselves and have such an obvious and natural meaning that attempts to explain them away to fit with binary power just feel like a massive stretch.

 

Then you should have worded the question better. You specifically differentiate between these two elements. The options you gave in the question are:
"You either have it (magic) or you don't with the difference between wizards being down entirely down to knowledge, skill, technique etc. (Aka binary magical power)?"

or

""Magical power" as a real attribute that wizards possess in different values (aka variable magic power)".

knowledge/skill/technique = those inputs you're talking about. Thus binary.

My response to this is that any wizard/witch is capable of achieving what is done in the GOF scenes given the right scenario/education/knowledge etc. They have magic and, thus, are potentially capable of performing what Dumbledore did.

The idea of the inputs = equating to magical power is actually the Binary view based on how you worded the question.

 

I read it basically the same as Arthellion.

So, when it comes to power in terms of this discussion, I think we need to clarify whether we are arguing over we are talking power as the input into cast magic or the output effect? Because if it is output effect, it is clearly variable but I would argue the input is binary (discounting the adult wizard vs non-adult wizard factor).

 

@yargle 100% input magic. Output magic is so very obviously variable.

The complex personality mashup has IMO much greater impact on the output than even "doubling the innate magic" of a person, and we seemingly all agree on complex personality affecting output.

The point of contention seems to be whether magic is "Yes they are magical" or "Magic is another characteristic person is born with", like power/intelligence predisposition. I think I answered "Variable magical power", because I like the idea of it, but upon rereading this thread and formulating by thought above, I now honestly can't decide which. Both seem valid, and impact actual result of magic very little.

 

I read the question as "are there factors outside of personal choices that change the output". What discreet part of those factors is "the magic" is not really interesting to me.

 

What a fatuous empty argument. Next we're going to hear that Dumbledore had a bigger magical core.

The best thing to come out of this thread.

Yes. That's all there is to it. You either have the ability or you don't. There aren't people with less magic and others with more.

And yet, we have wizards like Dumbledore. Intelligent, studious with a certain aptitude and attitude. And that makes a difference in their ability with magic, casting it or not.

Put another way, Dumbledore's magical core is the same size as Harry Potter's. That is to say about 5 and a half inches. The difference being, he knows how to use it...and it shows.

 

So, agree with most of what you say, but disagree on this aspect. Whether magic is variable vs binary has a massive impact on the individual capacity of wizards.

In the case of binary, we get {Binary of 1 or 0} * {Character/Intelligence/Experience mashup} = Output. So let's use canon Dumbledore, Harry, Dudley and a fictional Squib who has studied Magic extensively (Let's call him Taure) as our examples and 50 as the max tier of the above one is capable of (no way to functionally systematize this, this is just to explain this concept mathematically).

Dumbledore: 1 * 50 =50 Magical Power.
Harry: 1 * 10= 10 Magical Power.
Dudley 0*10= 0 Magical Power.
Taure: 0 * 50= 0 Magical Power.

In comparison to variable magical power. Let's use a Fanfic Harry with BDE Magic Core of 10 and Manipulative Dumbledore with Magic Core of 2.

Dumbldore: 2* 50= 100 Magic Power
Harry 10 * 10=100 Magic Power
Dudley 0*10= 0 Magical Power.
Taure: 0 * 50= 0 Magical Power.

What we see here in Variable magic power is that magical power becomes a baseline multiplier. Variable magic is what would allow a Fanfic Harry to magically equivocate to Dumbledore.

At the end of the day, Variable Magic vs. Binary Magic is the difference between Canon Magic System and Fanfic Magic System.

 

Dumbledore disagrees in HBP

Magic power is clearly portrayed as something quantifiable and measurable, and that Harry's age and lack of full education makes his magic powers not worth noticing beyond Dumbledore's magical powers.

 

Sure, but it's quantifiable and measurable because of the age and lack of full education, not because Harry's "Magic Core" is somehow less than Dumbledore's. There's nothing inherently more magical about Dumbledore than Harry.

 

Dumbledore: "Voldemort will not have cared about the weight, but about the amount of magical power that crossed his lake"
Dumbledore "I think it unlikely that your powers will register compared to mine"

It's pretty clear what he's saying. The age and lack of educaiton are portrayed as being variables that affect magical powers.

 

Yes? That’s the binary argument. No one’s saying there isn’t a difference in output. We’re debating over what inputs are. There is not, according to canon, some variable magical input that equates to magical power.

 

After a certain point we inevitably hit the wall of Rowling not putting that much thought into how she phrased things like that, or the magic system in general. We're putting a lot more thought into it than she did.

 

@Arthellion - I was more thinking like:

AD - 1.05 x 500 = 525
HP - 1.2 x 200 = 240

as in: I like the idea of variable magic, but only as a small multiplier with personality having a much larger impact

 

There is canonically at least four different "levels" of human in terms of magic: muggles, squibs, underage wizards, and adult wizards. Is it really that big of a stretch to think that it's a sliding scale instead of a series of fixed thresholds?

 

Does he though? Seems like your bold lettering is very selective..let me rectify it

Now if your average wizard's core was a very modest 5 and a half inches how would Voldemort's boat know to identify Dumbledore's 10 inch core as belonging to only one wizard?

This conversation doesn't make sense to me because it's basically arguing for a magical core. Like some have more magic or less based on some inherent qualities. Within the students we don't see Hermione doing worse at a subject because she has less magic, but because she is close-minded. Neville didn't get better because his magical core got bigger after puberty.

In the real, mundane world there exist intelligent people, deep thinkers, charismatic orators...wrap all that up into a single package, add magic and you get Dumbledore. And we are supposed to be in awe of Dumbledore's power, it's natural that JKR pumps him up.

What purpose does having characters who have more magic due to inherent qualities serve other than inexplicably being better than or on par with great wizards?

 

I think I can add to that using, from what I recall, Taure's own argument - if Dumbledore has more magic than Harry, then for Harry to 'not even register', Dumbledore's magic would have to be infinitely greater. Even if Harry's magic is one millionth of Dumbledore's magic, it still registers. And while Dumbledore is quite powerful, I don't think he was that powerful.