Feb 24, 2025 20 min read Philosophy of Fantasy

Magic is Science.

....Or my convoluted approach to my earlier claims that I can write scientific magic.

Hi!

Several posts ago, I made the claim that I wanted to make the magic in my novel, scientific, to meet Mohs' Scale of Hardness, Level 5..

If you know me in real life, I have always been fascinated by realism in fantasy, taken to the same extreme of real life tasks like pouring coffee, breathing, or computer science.

My initiative is a step further than hard fantasy, where there are rules, or rigorous world building.

I wanted to write fiction, that critics won't know if it's SF, or Fantasy - I want to eliminate the need for separate genres, and make Arthur Clarke's 2nd and 3rd law, obsolete.

This is the process you need to follow, for a magic system in your novel, that makes the novel science fiction.

Preamble.

This article is dedicated to my mother, who has always answered my questions, for as long as I can remember.

I have been told my own fair share of 'the sky is high' when I asked why, too many times 😛

This article is the reasoning I wanted to hear, but her love made the path to the answer, easier.

The Short (and bad) Answer.

Magic vs. Science, or Magic and Science, are the wrong way to look at both, and either.

The correct way to look at both, is ability.

Not in the magical context - I mean in the 'I can breathe' or 'I am Bolt because I run' or 'I can leetcode well'.

Here are the 4 laws of magic on earth, for all SF/F writers, so you can manifest them in your media, your way, with your personal aesthetic.

Anything is possible, because of your imagination, and so you give your character any ability. This is the first rule.

This ability is constrained by the past of all things living (the people around the character) and non-living (e.g., the tools in his hands), and the interplay between the two (his father teaching him swordsmanship, and inheritance of that sword), which includes intentional choice.

This is the second rule.

Third rule - his ability is further constrained by:

An inability to make another preexisting ability, contradictory.
Stronger choices against him.
1. If his twin sister fights better than him, than in perfect equilibrium, she will always win against him...all else being equal.
His past choices.
1. Did he learn swordsmanship, or did he skip the classes, and send his twin sister in boys clothes?
2. Did he take care of the sword well, or did he sell it to his sister?
3. Did he pack it for the battle, or is it rusting in the bottom of a lake?
An inability to modify the past of his ability, by any consequence of his ability.

Put another way, causality is 1 way, if the effect is from a previous cause.
If time travel is an ability, and his birth is from 4 causes, he can't kill his grandparents, but he can kill someone else's through time travel, provided him and the other person are isolated in terms of cause and effect.
He can go back in time and pack the sword he forgot for the fight.
But if he learned time travel because he forgot his sword, and he panicked on the battlefield, then he can't.
In a line, this is probably a physics concept, like temporal continuity, and temporal locality.

The fourth, and final rule - in the present, this character can do any of these:

Decide to use current ability, in what manner, and why.... or to not use them at all.
Modify his ability, as long as the modifications don't contradict the previous rules.
Foster an attachment to the desire to develop new abilities, for the future, by intelligently, and intentionally, choosing actions keeping in mind that rules #2 and #3 affect his reality in the future.
Affect others with his abilities, passively, or by choice, without contradicting rule #3.
Repeat rule #1, and create a new ability.

After all these rules are applied to what you imagined for rule #1, whatever's left of it, will be science magic.

As you can see, the above laws apply to everything from learning how to use a sword, to forming psionic blades.

This process doesn't distinguish between running fast, and teleportation, and interestingly, all of these can be explained by my model:

The magic system in Harry Potter, which at best, is analogous to Wiccan / witchcraft.
The magic system in Mistborn.
The aura system in Hunter x Hunter, especially 1 concept in particular, is a 1:1 fit with rule #3.
Satoru Goju's Limitless, and Six Eyes of the Lark.
Maayabazaar.
Jesus walking on water.

Furthermore, a novelist can use these rules to write with the quality of above, in his way.

Confused?

I was, too.

In fact, once I wrote the above section, I thought it was rubbish.

There's a BIG difference between saying:

Teleportation makes for good reading, and entertainment.
If someone can teleport all the time, it's not fun. Why will people read? It's like Superman, again.
I need some rules that add up - even though I am a writer, I need some consistent guidelines to keep the reader engaged.

Versus, saying:

If you can read this, you can teleport.

Further more, there is no need to prove it scientifically.

Just trust me.

Trust me, and include anything in your novel, and call it science.

I am a great teacher, I know what I am doing.

The Long Answer

As often happens during my articles, a perceptual shift needs to happen for me to be right.

The best way to understand my process, is to start at the beginning.

Now, teleportation is not possible. I hear you!

Planes are a proven fact - they exist.

Teleportation doesn't exist.

But my focus is not on planes - it's on the law of physics that when air moves faster over 1 side of the wing, but not the other, the difference in pressure, creates a lift.

Similarly, again, I understand the problem with saying 'Airbenders used their mind to move air' like saying 'A biplane uses fluid mechanics, to move, but with a propeller'.

Usually, as readers of novels, and normal people, we see something, and compliment the creativity behind it. This applies to inventions, for sure.

Some of us, pay a lot of money to buy it, or experience it.

The rare few of us, day dream of such a world.

We know such a world is false - but we assume that world is true, in our day dreams, so we can fantasize.

Then there's me - I spent my interview preparation time, for a year, wondering what kind of thinking would lead to Kadane, to conceive of Kadane's algorithm.

As the story goes, he saw his teacher write the fastest algorithm, and created a faster one, in a minute.

Grenander was looking to find a rectangular subarray with maximum sum, in a two-dimensional array of real numbers.

A brute-force algorithm for the two-dimensional problem runs in O(n⁶) time; because this was prohibitively slow, Grenander proposed the one-dimensional problem to gain insight into its structure.

Grenander derived an algorithm that solves the one-dimensional problem in O(n²) time,^{[note 1]} improving the brute force running time of O(n³).

When Michael Shamos heard about the problem, he overnight devised an O(n log n) divide-and-conquer algorithm for it.

Soon after, Shamos described the one-dimensional problem and its history at a Carnegie Mellon University seminar attended by Jay Kadane, who designed within a minute an O(n)-time algorithm,^[5]^[6]^[7] which is as fast as possible.^{[note 2]} -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_subarray_problem

Where people are good at computer science (hi amma!), and where people are good at coding (hi Vimala!)....

I spent a lot of time wondering what kind of perception it takes, to see something, and realize it's wrong, in a minute.

That is, no matter how many times I looked at the algorithm, I am unable to recreate a mental model that would look at his professor's work, and think 'I can reduce the speed, by an entire order, if I only change this 1 thing'.

That's some very efficient and academic daydreaming on his part, in the middle of class.

I am grateful I just need to code it in 20 minutes, instead of coming up with a novel idea in 1 minute.

Similarly, when the Wright brothers, wanted to fly, what were they thinking?

Were they thinking, lets create a plane with 2 wings, so when pushed, in certain situations, with the right takeoff (let's call our uncle to help), aerodynamics will set in, and if the plane is strong enough, then the plan will fly, as per the math of ballistics, because....physics!

I don't think so.

Did the insight of flight come first, or the plane?

As readers, we read the effect of magic, and I personally have been criticizing the lack of logic for a very long time.

This is a good thing, because with too much hand waving, the story becomes exponentially weaker.

Conversely, rigid, synergistic, and fun systems of magic are a selling point in itself, and enrich the story. The stories I've enjoyed as a young adult reflect a more intensive look into magic, instead of assuming things work out.

I based my research in magic on the idea that to make a fantasy novel scientific, I need to prove that the speculative part is either real, or provable at some point.

In SF terms, for example, it's scientific enough to talk about black holes, because stars have gravity, and stars die eventually.

These two concepts raise the question of what happens when the star collapses under its own gravity.

If there is scientific evidence of black holes, great - but intuitively, the concept of something no longer working, creating a problem for others, and falling down, makes sense to everyone.

Like, drinking too much before a fight.

So one way to prove magic, is to document people doing it. So far, this hasn't worked.

For example, if my character can fly, and I can prove 10 out of 100,000,000 people can fly, then I have evidence of flight.

But again - and this is what I realized last week - even this is the wrong way to go about writing science.

I can't prove all these things. I don't have the resources, even if I know anyone who can fly.

Rereading my steps to create science magic, I realized that the scientific model relies on proving something implausible, as something plausible.

That is, scientists want to prove that if you throw 10 planes out of the cliff, 10 will fly. This is because of a law of nature, and we look at the universe differently.

99.99% success is great engineering, especially if seat belts have been invented, and we can sell tickets to Hawaii, as a business.

What if the inventor does the same process, in reverse?

Put another way - what if the inventor, and the patron, see the same invention, in reverse to each other?

That is, the inventor starts with the impossible, and makes the impossible a reality. A type of projection into reality.

Where we see Apple, and think it looks well designed, perhaps Steve Jobs saw IBM, and Microsoft, and got annoyed.

What if Kadane saw his professor work, and got curious that the reality where his teacher was right, was not satisfactory?

What if the wright brothers were not OK with being flightless, and created a means to a new reality?

I always thought the scientific process reveals the truth, like peeling layers off an onion.

But thought and emotions, a primal and intuitive motivator, while being irrational, instinctive, and fruitful (depending on who you ask), goes the opposite direction - the emotion starts first, and then the act happens.

Looking at a baby as a prime example of being un-scientific, but passionate - they don't follow logic.

What they want comes first, and then the world arranges itself to make it happen, if the child is lucky enough to be loved. I believe this concept is referenced in Seth Dickinson's very nice story.

Let's assume that for Julius Caesar, it's enough for him to see something, for it to be conquered.

Vini, Vidi, Vici.

I came, I saw, I conquered.

Let's assume he has a conqueror's mindset, and isn't looking at Rome, and thinking it would be logical to expand the empire, by adding France.

Let's say, he probably thought something like this -

Oh wow, that place looks nice, what are we waiting for?

Get the army ready.

We dine in Paris tonight, my legions!

There is absolutely no reason for some weird things to happen. Giving birth is one thing - genocide is definitely, another.

I doubt evolution is premeditated.

Similarly, I can't imagine animals thinking that another set of animals, have too much hair, and as the uber-animals-who-came-first, a point needs to be made as cruelly, and efficiently as possible.

Writing, of course, is another irrational activity, if you think no one is reading.

There are a lot of reasons to read (academic interest, Your Boss Emailed, and making sure kids sleep), with some good reasons to edit (making things better, a job), but there's no inherent benefit, or point, to moving fingers on a computer, just because it makes you happy.

As such, there is no difference between a dog chasing its own tail, and a boy wanting to write on a blank page, even though there's no ulterior motive.

There is a lot of sense in coding to help people, or correcting code to earn money, or to prove to a company you are worth the money.

There is absolutely no reason to think any of these:

That's what my professor said, but can I do it faster?
Binary represents 2. Can we use quantum mechanics to represent 3 states, giving computers more options at the base?
If I can remember, learn, reason, and invent, can a machine do so, too?

Simon Sinek explores this topic in a nice TED talk. He says Apple starts with a why, then a how, and then the what.

However, again, in analyzing organizational success, he attributes that there was a why, to begin with, possible projecting onto Apple.

My first contention is that at the heart of creation, there is nothing - no rhyme, no reason, no order or harmony. Just raw, unfiltered emotion. Chaos.

Second, if Simon says, Newton asked 'why did the apple fall?', I am pointing out a deeper level of emotion, that is universal - 'why did my child fall onto the ground? Oh, he ran with wet shoes, again.' is the same curiosity Newton investigated, through hard work.

Third, Simon isn't completely right. Not everything starts with a why. Sometimes, chance can lead to a series of fortunate events, and success. For example, I believe someone can start a business because of something vague like 'I want a job', and this is reflected in the profits. Think of a local mom and pop store, anywhere in the world, that is famous, profitable, and a cultural milestone - because someone needed a job.

While I always enjoy his talks, I think Simon's why behind this speech, is a thorough breakdown of someone else's inciting incident - you can't reverse engineer someone's why behind the what, and even if you do, such a mindset is there in every person, even if it's not verbalized.

I see the irony of criticizing someone else, saying he can't possibly understand what Steve Jobs was thinking.

Bad time for jokes - #1

What do you get when you reverse an effect, to understand the genesis of the cause?
Simon Sinek's ted talk.

What do you get when you reverse the perception of a scientist?
Love of his invention, foreign to him, but the starting point for his users.
A problem is now solved.

What is the genesis of creation?
Love.

What is the way to create science?
This article, keep reading! 👍

Tying these topics together - emotion, writing for the sake of writing, coding for a purpose, but inventing in a flash of curiosity, followed by insight.....

What do you see?

To go beyond logical magic, and to write science, is to say that a person wants, and a world reflecting such values is (often painstakingly) created.

It's the same as what Simon said, about Steve job's why leading to company success, but I believe such motivation is ubiquitous, common, and is not always successful.

I find this concept analogous to Domain Expansion in JJK, or pocket dimensions in anime like Fate/ 0.

Then there's no need to prove magic is scientific, just like there's no reason to prove that airplanes are not magic.

The debate of science fiction arises, only because we assume everything makes sense, and therefore it's interesting to see what is possible in the future, and to condition the unknown to create a fantasy.

In reverse, and in truth, nothing makes sense - what sense we make of it, becomes science - but not magic, because once something exists, it becomes familiar.

The solution to write science in fantasy, is to accept that framing something as scientific, or magical, is inherently inaccurate.

To frame everything as magical, but evaluated according to science, is the solution to writing science.

Inherently, our sense of wonder is emotional. There's no hesitation to wonder, and wonder is definitely subjective.

I used to think garbage trucks were wonderful, as a toddler. Now, I think I am wonderful - the times have changed, I guess 😆 But the garbage trucks are still the same - in my case, maybe even exactly the same vehicle over three decades 🙂

If you want to write science magic in your novel, here's the condensed version:

You can use anything under the sun, as a starting point. Literally. Any. Thing. Under. The. Sun. It. doesn't. even. have. to. be. real. It can be something as curious as wanting to understand, or wanting to get angry at injustice. It can be emotional, or a lack of emotion. This requires imagination, and has to be irrational.
Create the consequences, from (1), from scratch. What does something do when they feel (1)?
1. Do they invent planes?
2. Do they start a competitor to Microsoft?
3. Do they swear an oath to make sure (1) never happens again?
From (2), use internal logic to refine it, like removing pebbles from grain.
1. Have planes been invented already? The same thing can't be invented twice.
2. Did you mention Microsoft in your world, if Steve Jobs didn't like it? If there's no Microsoft, then there is no competition to Microsoft.
3. Did the person succeed in fulfilling their oath?
External logic, to refine further.
1. Is there metal, to make a plane? Why?
2. Does Steve Jobs want to start a company? Or is he too lazy?
3. Is it possible for her to fullfill her oath? Or will it just backfire, and make everything worse?

My claim, for the record:

The end result from this process, no matter how fantastical it may seem, is science.

So, to write magic as science, start with magic, and cut off the fantasy, so what remains is a distilled, and processed version of the impossible.

This impossible, is now science.

Repeat if you want!

The more you repeat, the more stressful it gets, but the result becomes exponentially more distilled.

Let there be light, first, and so give the sun the ability to brighten the universe.

4 Case Studies.

Earth, Science Fiction, Harry Potter, Jujutsu Kaisen

Using these 4 laws, there is no difference between the mundane (airplane), science fiction (a transponder, or a worm hole), and apparition (Harry Potter), or Satoru Goju's Limitless (JJK)

All of these, are abilities: Piloting, Using a device, Visualization followed by Action, and Attraction.

In their universes, these are how these basic actions can manifest.

Earth

Piloting a plane (traveling on earth).

This is because the Wright Brothers notice, and embody a device, that uses natural laws.

Anything is possible - but for the law to work, certain things like limited number of passengers are in effect, to manage weight.

Science Fiction / Altered Carbon-esque

Use a device that creates his consciousness on a digital drive, stored elsewhere in the universe.

This is because your character notices that the brain runs on electrical signals, like a computer, so by coding his brain's signal over time and their response to chemical reactions, he can paste those exact patterns on a magnetic drive, and make sure the drive interprets other signals as patterns his brain needs to know, in lieu of chemicals like endorphins, adrenaline or dopamine.

Harry Potter

Visualize where your character wants to go, and then go there with every fibre of his being, taking care to not splinch his nails, or other body parts in the process.

This is possible by rearranging the universe around his lack of motion, causing the ground underneath him to not be where he is, but where he wants to be.

In this case, we start with instant travel. (rule #1)
The character either learns it, or is taught by someone else, who knows it. (rule #2)
If everyone who knew instant travel, did it at the same time, then there is the possibility of 2 people being in the same place, at the same time, leading, not to death, but to an impossibility. (breaks rule #3)
If it's impossible, and it happened, then, instant travel is not possible.
OK, how about instant travel, as long as whoever desires the most, gets to go first? (rule #3)
This makes sense. It requires a clear, intentional choice, and doesn't lead to impossibility. (rule #4)

Jujutsu Kaisen - Limitless & Six Eyes of the Lark

Attract your opponent, to teleport and punch him (an interpretation of Satoru Gojo's Limitless, blue).

This is possible by Satoru creating a vacuum by removing the air in front of him, to the side, pulling him front, quickly. Satoru removes the air, using his mind.

Of course, there are many ways to do this, and this is the beauty of my method. I will pick this interpretation, though.

This one is harder than the previous examples.

The break down is like this:

Let's start with the anything, being - 'Moving air with mind'.
If moving air with mind, is the starting point, then it's definitely possible, because anything is possible. This meets rule #1.
The Gojo clan has sutras that teach an aspirant how to use their abilities, meeting rule #2. Furthermore, as an arrogant person, drawn to greatness, Satoru spends a lot of time training to be stronger.
There is only 1 Satoru Gojo. Both abilities occur together only once in centuries - this meets rule #3.

I won't prove rule #4, as I am trying to keep this article spoiler free.

The main controversial point here, is rule #1, and that's also the hardest to understand.

Now, G. Akutami said the ability is genetic.

I believe his response to 'limitless is not real' is to add a caveat that 'it's not real, but assuming the Gojo clan has a rare genetic trait allowing him to control energy, then he can manipulate space at the atomic level, giving him powers of fusion, fission, and both'.

Putting JJK at a Mohs Level of, 3 - Physics Plus.

That is, some families evolutionarily, retain some traits.

I personally believe that anything can be learned, so creating a technique in your mind, can happen from mimicking the physical, behavioral, emotional, and worldly experience someone went through.

For this reason, I would rate JJK as level 4, since Limitless uses 1 big lie of evolutionary traits that require some ancestor being able to manipulate atoms, and the knowledge is passed down through sutras and biology.

I am sure society will give it a 3 - the only problem science will have with it, is that people are not born with the ability to modify atoms, since genetics are a thing. On top of that, this is just 1 ability - several abilities are there.

Now - here's the kicker.

If Satoru Goju believes the reason G. Akutami gave, then, JJK becomes level 5.

This is because, it's possible Satoru Gojo doesn't know everything, and this incomplete view ties perfectly into my model - he is human, and as someone egotistical, he will have 10,000 opinions on everything.

Congratulations on reading a bit under 5,000 words!

Magic is Science.

Preamble.

The Short (and bad) Answer.

Confused?

The Long Answer