Entertainment desk
< August 14	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 15

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

The third of Clarke's three laws (or the variant "Magic is just science that we don't understand yet") is often cited in works of fiction. I know that it was Arthur C. Clarke who said it, but I have not read his books yet. However, there can be two meanings to it. One, if someone meets a highly advanced technology for which he has no frame of reference (this may involve time travel or advanced aliens), understanding the way it works would be so difficult that it's tempting to just give up and cry "it's magic!" (but there's not really any magic, and things may be eventually understood anyway with enough dedication). The second, there is actual and functional magic in the setting (such as Dr. Strange), and some scientist character refuses to accept it as such, because it's just a phenomenon that has not been studied enough, and there has to be an underlying logic to it.

In which in-story context does Clarke use those laws? The first, the second or both? The article is focused on the real life side and does not mention it. in fact, when mentioning its uses it only cites essays, not stories. Is it even used within Clarke's works of fiction (as Asimov's laws of robotics), or did he use it in real-life discussions? Cambalachero (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This occurs in a footnote in a revised edition of Clarke's non-fiction work Profiles of the future; an inquiry into the limits of the possible.^[1] In the context, "magic" appears to stand for "scientific achievements one would not have thought possible" – where I guess by "possible" he meant "possible within the laws of nature such as they are". --Lambiam 23:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier use by Clarke is in a letter to the editor of Science.^[2] I found this by reading the section Clarke's three laws § Origins, where it is referenced. --Lambiam 15:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]