Trials of Magic


          It is logical to assume that objective truth exists. However, because you are a part of the universe, you cannot simply step back and take a look at it. Thus you are limited to a subjective view point. Objective truth will be in invariable question to subjective viewers. So existentialism is justified to a point. Objective truth, however, can be deduced and/or speculated upon. Through logic and empiricism, we can project or deduce what objective truth is. And so, I propose these three "trials of magic."

          Logic: Is your idea (or concept of magic) reasonable? Does it work logically? Can it be logically supported? Logically supporting a magical concept would be comparable to justifying normal physics.

  • The apple was released from the tree.
  • The apple fell to the ground.
  • Thus the apple must have been acted upon by an external force (gravity).

  • The spell was cast.
  • The spell discipated without yielding the desired effect.
  • Thus the spell must have been acted upon by an external force (entropy).

    •            Empiricism: Does your idea (or concept of magic) work at first glance? Does it hold up under experimentation? Does it hold up in practice? Proper science here would demand a hypothesis to be made, a theory to be developed and tested, and a fact/law to be proven (if it gets that far). All of these, in my opinion, should be recorded for archival purposes, if not future reflection and testing.

              Functionality: So the idea works, but how well? Is it practical? If you were to be put under pressure, could this idea/concept/practice pull through? Practicality is a major consideration in determining effective habits, methods, and techniques. If your idea/concept/practice is not functional or practical, it doesn't matter how logical or how well proven it is, it still doesn't make the cut.

              If your idea, concept, or practice does not hold up under ANY of the critera mentioned above, then write it off and consider it useless. While only the first two should be used in evaluating truth, all should be considered for anything that you want to incorporate into existing ideas that have already met the standards. This is the only clear cut way I have found to evaluate information. If you have any ideas or revisions that you think should be brought to my attention, feel free to let me know.