Talk:Clarke's three laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can anyone remember where Clarke stated his Three Laws? —Paul A 03:10 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I believe they were developed at different times. I could be wrong, but I think the Third Law came about from Rendezvous with Rama. -- Darac 15:30, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've tracked down an article I remembered seeing about the origin of the Laws. It says that all three are from the essay "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination". [1] —Paul A 01:18, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lee M's amendment to Clarke's Third Law:

Technology, no matter how advanced, is always distinguishable from magic, insofar as technology works and magic doesn't. Lee M 19:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I believe you have failed to capture the gist of that law. Take a cellphone back 200 years and you'll see what he means... if you successfuly escape the people with the pitchforks and torches. Arikb 22:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Bad example ... there's no one to talk with back then; no cell towers. Better example ... go back to any date before the Industrial Revolution with a Zippo lighter ... or visit any of the "forgotten" stone-age tribes in the Amazon rainforest or Mindanao in today's world. Dennette 05:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
An aircraft carrier. Would it be seen as a boat, or as a magical floating island that can summon giant birds of destruction? MMetro (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of accountability, I am going to credit "Clarke's Third Law for Science-Fiction Writers" to David Langford (rather than, as the anon. contributor has done, to Clarke himself), on the grounds that

  1. I have found no other reference to Clarke having said it; and
  2. I have found a reference to Langford having said it under circumstances that suggest he made it up.

If you find an earlier reference than mine, feel free to correct me. --Paul A 01:30, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, we have both

Raymond's Second Law: Any sufficiently advanced system of magic would be indistinguishable from a technology.

...and...

Terry Pratchett refers to the law in his Discworld books by having wizard Ponder Stibbons state that "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

Seems like it's stating the same thing twice, no? Perhaps these should be combined somehow, or at the very least, placed next to each other in the list.

Rhomboid 00:33, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

"Seems like it's stating the same thing twice, no?" No. Raymond's formulation is more precise, and, to be blunt, shows signs of having had some thought put into it, whereas "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology" is a rather obvious joke that was around years before Pratchett used it. That said, I agree that they're too similar to really be listed separately. --Paul A 03:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I've been trying to trace "any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice" for this page and failing. If anyone can find the source, then it belongs --Po8crg 09:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The corollary "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced", attributed to Gregory Benford on the basis of its appearance in his 1997 novel, was actually created quite a few years earlier by Barry Gehm, a scientist and science fiction fan. Buttons with this quote, attributing it to Gehm, were sold at Midwestern science fiction conventions in the 1980s, and Stanley Schmidt used it as a filler item in Analog around 1991, also attributing it to Gehm. An archived discussion from 1994 on the EFF website (see [2])includes this sig file: '"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."- Dr. Barry Gehm's corollary to Clarke's law'

A retroactive apology for the admittedly vain addition of my corollary to the list, removed by Mdob. Sorry! -- Ben 10:43, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Contents

[edit] Slashdot pastische

Another parody has appeared as a sig on slashdot :

  • Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality

Should I add it ? (I can trace the origins... maybe...) (note : sorry, forgot to sign in...)

[edit] Picard thought to be a god

"References in other works" includes this: "In another [Star Trek] episode a race of Bronze Age humanoids see Federation technology and conclude that Picard is a god." That is not a specific reference to one of Clarke's laws. At best, it's an example of something vaguely resembling the Third Law. (I say "vaguely" because "god" is not a synonym for "magic"). I'm deleting it. Pat Berry 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I think many of the "references" are similarly vauge as the Picard one above- anything not directly relating to the actual law or Clarke should be deleted. I will copy the deleted ones into here for reference. Master z0b 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. In the Tales of Phantasia series of RPGs, there are frequent references to Magictechnology, Magitech, or MysTek.
  2. In the Final Fantasy series of RPGs, there are also frequent references to Magitechnology, and much of the magic used in the games is later explained as originally having technological origins.
  3. In the Futurama episode When Aliens Attack, Professor Farnsworth attempts to explain to Fry why a television signal from the 20th century reached the planet Omicron Persei 8 in the 31st century. However, just as the professor begins to explain the limitations of electromagnetic waves, Fry dismissively replies "Magic. Got it."
  4. The television series Stargate SG-1 uses Clarke's third law as its central theme. The advanced Goa'uld race uses technology in the guise of magic to conquer and enslave humans.
  5. The television series Spellbinder (TV series) involves a ruling class who are trained in technology which is kept hidden from the working class. These Spellbinders refer to this technology as "magic".

I have deleted all of these for the reasons above. Master z0b 04:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's First Law

"When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervour and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right."

I've added this to the references section, at the head of the list. I'm not sure that it deserves this prominence, but it does have the advantage of being an explicit reference (with Clarke specifically named). In fact, given the friendship between Clarke and Asimov, I would be surprised if Clarke had not seen this corollary, although I haven't seen any record of his response to it.

I obtained the quotation of Asimov's corollary from a usenet post (http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.arts.sf.misc/msg/e4185210a85826fc), but it matches up with my (alas, not word-perfect) memory of having read it myself. The post gives the original source for the quotation: an essay entitled "Asimov's Corollary", published in the February 1977 issue of 'F&SF' (which I believe refers to The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction), and was also reproduced in the collection "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright" (1978, Doubleday). I'd add this reference to the page itself, but I'm afraid that my knowledge of wikicode is lacking. -- Random wikipedia user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Just a Thought

Perhaps there is no opractical distinction between technology and magic? If it works, fine. If you know how it works it's technology. If you don't, it's magic. We might also add, if it doesn't work but you have an explanation of how it works, it's religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.6.17 (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Logical Fallacy of the Third Law

Should it not be mentioned somewhere in the article that Clarke’s Third Law is fatally flawed? Neatly constructed as it is, neat-sounding as it is, it's still little more than a first order example of Circular Reasoning. In fact it's such a tight example it's a tautology, a mere Truism (such as is noted in Wikipedia as, “a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device).

The flaw in the law lies in the weasel word qualifier “sufficiently” - which raises (or should raise) in the alert mind a basic question: sufficiently unto what?

To determine that, begin by slightly altering the word order; as in this version:

Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.”

This brings no change in meaning, but us to more readily to consider - what is the test for "sufficiently"?

Without any other reference, the only test for the postulated advanced technology is that it be advanced sufficiently to ... to... to ...

To be indistinguishable from magic.

Which means that a full rendition of the law would read:

Any technology sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic is indistinguishable from magic.

Circular reasoning in its most basic form, as tautological as “A is A” or “It aint over till it’s over.” And as such, an essentially meaningless truism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTGILLICK (talk • contribs) 05:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)