The Too Perfect Theory

[Bob Farmer]

I believe Pavel The Great's position is that the audiences should wonder at the marvelous method, though I'm not clear on whether he means the actual method or the method the audience creates in looking for a solution. As I've said, this sort of presentation isn't magic since it isn't impossible, so it has no appeal to me.

I hope he doesn't mean the actual method because the actual method will usually be a great disappointment--which I think is the real reason magicians should oppose exposures--they make the audience look dumb and the magician something less than human. The real method in magic is 99% psychological and 1% mechanical--audiences can never appreciate the psychological method only the mechanical method (e.g., the bill floats because there is a thread connected to it--that's easily understood--but the psychological method--why the audience didn't think of that--cannot be understood by a laymen--and how to construct the effect so that they never suspect a thread is something only a magician thinking magically can do).

[Paco Nagata]

The real method in magic is 99% psychological and 1% mechanical--audiences can never appreciate the psychological method only the mechanical method

Wise sentence. I like it. I will add it to my mind along with your well known name, Mr. Farmer.
I think it helps a lot to understand the audience's point of view (which is an extremely important thing).

[PavelTheGreat]

I believe Pavel The Great's position is that the audiences should wonder at the marvelous method, though I'm not clear on whether he means the actual method or the method the audience creates in looking for a solution. As I've said, this sort of presentation isn't magic since it isn't impossible, so it has no appeal to me.

I hope he doesn't mean the actual method because the actual method will usually be a great disappointment--which I think is the real reason magicians should oppose exposures--they make the audience look dumb and the magician something less than human. The real method in magic is 99% psychological and 1% mechanical--audiences can never appreciate the psychological method only the mechanical method (e.g., the bill floats because there is a thread connected to it--that's easily understood--but the psychological method--why the audience didn't think of that--cannot be understood by a laymen--and how to construct the effect so that they never suspect a thread is something only a magician thinking magically can do).

You are right and you are wrong. Yes it is not Magic if it is possible by natural means. But it is falsehood to suggest that what we do is Magic. By strict definition, if it is impossible, we cannot do it. If we can do it, is possible, and therefore have a logical answer.

How many times I tell people (scientists who should no better), "supernatural" is just word. Such does not exist. Everything marvellous that we see is natural, whether we understand it or not. "Magic" is only failure to understand Nature.

All magic is nature in disguise. If not natural, we could not experience. Is only mystery to be solved. Ignorant people might believe that "impossible" can happen, but smart ones I play to. I concede is something real, though not common knowledge.

And yes, I mean try to make audience believe in fantastic method, not simple deception.

Problem is philosophical. You exploit belief in "impossible". I honestly say impossible cannot happen. If I demonstrate, is possible. Is therefore science. "Impossible" is that we think will not occur. When magician does it, it WAS impossible (false assumption), but now is possible. Object is to imply that some new discovery (or wonderful secret) is the cause.

It bothers me that a misconception is the basis for Magic. I think we should grow up and admit the facts. Magic and Supernatural are miracles only because we do not grasp reality. These are not properties or qualities. They are beliefs in illusion. To make Magic stronger, we should suggest is based on reality. I think to suggest is based on nonsense is weaker.

[Paco Nagata]

To make Magic stronger, we should suggest is based on reality. I think to suggest is based on nonsense is weaker.

Magic is a nonsense by itself!; a paradox.
So to speak, IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE. Paradoxes are concepts that contradict themselves, so, they are incompatible with reality.
So, magic is incompatible with reality. As a result, magic cannot be based in reality.
If magic were based in reality it would stop being magic because of the paradox.
When a magician says "I did magic," he or she doesn't mean turning the magic into a real thing, because it would stop being magic but a real thing!
I will quote myself the following from page 201 of my book:

"(...) From a passionate point of view we could say that 'the magician opens a tiny door for a small fraction of time between the border of the real and unreal, thus allowing spectators to see a bit of something unreal' which is how magicians get something to be without being able to be. On another hand,
from a practical point of view we could say that magic is like the special effects of cinema, which even though we know that it’s fiction, we like to see it as well. It’s evident that people like fiction, so that people also may like magic even though it’s clearly assumed that it’s not real. The more impossible the work of the magician seems, the more he is applauded, well aware that it must not be easy to do something that cannot be done.
Movies' special effects technicians work to AMAZE the spectator who is sitting in the movie theatre’s chair, and the more amazing
the film is, the more people applaud. The show is to relax imagining, dreaming, astonishing. To a large extent, life is beautiful precisely because of that, because we believe in what we don’t believe. I sometimes started a show saying comically:

"Magic exists, but let’s thinks that it doesn’t exist, so that being able to get surprise, okay?"

We can conclude that the Art of Magic is show magic, but not do magic, since it’s impossible. Do magic is quite different to show magic. Magicians cannot do magic, but can show it as an art called Magic. The aim of the magician is not exactly to make believe in magic, but to make viewers wish to believe in magic, which is very different. The reason why magic does not exist is not because I say so or because nobody says so, but because it’s a paradox, and paradoxes are incompatible with reality, in fact for that reason we get amazed when we 'see' magic (...)"

Other interesting sentence (page 197):
"Of course, magic doesn’t exist ... if it existed it wouldn’t be worth doing it!"

And from page 198:
"If magic existed there would be no
reason to be surprised by it"

[PavelTheGreat]

To make Magic stronger, we should suggest is based on reality. I think to suggest is based on nonsense is weaker.

Magic is a nonsense by itself!; a paradox.
So to speak, IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE. Paradoxes are concepts that contradict themselves, so, they are incompatible with reality.
So, magic is incompatible with reality. As a result, magic cannot be based in reality.
If magic were based in reality it would stop being magic because of the paradox.
When a magician says "I did magic," he or she doesn't mean turning the magic into a real thing, because it would stop being magic but a real thing!
I will quote myself the following from page 201 of my book:

"(...) From a passionate point of view we could say that 'the magician opens a tiny door for a small fraction of time between the border of the real and unreal, thus allowing spectators to see a bit of something unreal' which is how magicians get something to be without being able to be. On another hand,
from a practical point of view we could say that magic is like the special effects of cinema, which even though we know that it’s fiction, we like to see it as well. It’s evident that people like fiction, so that people also may like magic even though it’s clearly assumed that it’s not real. The more impossible the work of the magician seems, the more he is applauded, well aware that it must not be easy to do something that cannot be done.
Movies' special effects technicians work to AMAZE the spectator who is sitting in the movie theatre’s chair, and the more amazing
the film is, the more people applaud. The show is to relax imagining, dreaming, astonishing. To a large extent, life is beautiful precisely because of that, because we believe in what we don’t believe. I sometimes started a show saying comically:

"Magic exists, but let’s thinks that it doesn’t exist, so that being able to get surprise, okay?"

We can conclude that the Art of Magic is show magic, but not do magic, since it’s impossible. Do magic is quite different to show magic. Magicians cannot do magic, but can show it as an art called Magic. The aim of the magician is not exactly to make believe in magic, but to make viewers wish to believe in magic, which is very different. The reason why magic does not exist is not because I say so or because nobody says so, but because it’s a paradox, and paradoxes are incompatible with reality, in fact for that reason we get amazed when we 'see' magic (...)"

Other interesting sentence (page 197):
"Of course, magic doesn’t exist ... if it existed it wouldn’t be worth doing it!"

And from page 198:
"If magic existed there would be no
reason to be surprised by it"

This is reminding me for what I would say. That to me, Art of Magic is like Science-Fiction. Only difference seems to be that some prefer Fantasy.

But I say even Fantasy should be based on reality. More realistic is more believable. And belief is necessary in order to amaze. Nobody is amazed by something he does not believe. Perplexed, confused perhaps. "How did you do that?" Only answer is, "I did not". It has to be trick. Then audience know is not Magic. Then no longer impressed. Disappointed. They laugh at Magic like joke. "You got me!" Very clever.

It is not paradox. It is mistake, is misnomer to call something Magic because Magic exists only in the mind of the spectator. It is false perception. This is only proper definition of Magic. Paradox is that magician is claiming to do something that can only be misunderstanding. That is to say, only illusion.

This is misleading. Is better in my opinion to not try to fool audience, but enlighten or explain phenomenon like scientist.

What is paradox is combination of Magic and Trick. Magic does not happen, so is obviously trick. Therefore it is "puzzle", using word of Mr. Shalom. How did magician trick me to think it happens?

I prefer to inspire wonder, like good Science-Fiction. Wonder how it could actually happen. Offer "theory" if you will, speculation. Maybe not true, but logical conclusion.

Maybe psychic energy is real, can read mind or move object. Now many folks will say this is "impossible" but they do not know that. This is perceive to be impossible, but might be true. To demonstrate this is to convince that is possible, and therefore is wonderful.

[PavelTheGreat]

So sorry! In above, I say "Mr. Shalom". I mean Mr. Farmer. For some reason, I mix them up.

[Bob Farmer]

Farmer (and possibly Shalom as well) are both baffled by Pavel The Great's argument which means that the argument is logically inconsistent: an argument that rejects bafflement has created it.

[Jonathan Townsend]

@Pavel, and Paco; okay what do you do if seriously asked if you used real magic to do a trick? The audience sees the trick and feels they need to ask. What do you do or say?

Going back to gentle humor;
So maybe there really is a man from Nantucket. If they wonder - okay.

Don't be that man from Nantucket

[PavelTheGreat]

Farmer (and possibly Shalom as well) are both baffled by Pavel The Great's argument which means that the argument is logically inconsistent: an argument that rejects bafflement has created it.

I do not understand what you are saying, other than my logic is inconsistent. I do not think so. Trouble is, people (including some scientists) have been conditioned to believe that supernatural (magic) is by definition, something that could exist but governed by different laws, different nature. There is only one Nature, although there may be sub-sets in the universe. All must work together, be integrated. It is foolish to think that one set of laws can function independently of ours, and yet be manifest within our world.

I am rigorous logician, perhaps moreso than most. I defy notion that "supernatural" is legitimate subject for speculation. Is only that part of our nature that we do not perceive. is not and cannot be separate.

In hypothesis, we may conceive of different nature (different laws) but we may never demonstrate. A creature of a distinctly different Nature could not exist here, nor any act based in foreign principal occur.

I am being honest with audience that Magic is just wonder of Nature, is marveling at strange anomalies that nevertheless are within our world. Many mysteries remain, that seem impossible but are not. This sort of "supernatural" is not different nature, just part of nature we have yet to realise.

Please tell me where is inconsistency.

[Bill Duncan]

I am being honest with audience that Magic is just wonder of Nature, is marveling at strange anomalies that nevertheless are within our world. Many mysteries remain, that seem impossible but are not. This sort of "supernatural" is not different nature, just part of nature we have yet to realise.

I would love to know how you present mentalism. Do you lie and tell them your "natural" effect is real or your real demonstration is fake?

For me magic is simple: make them feel they have experienced something impossible to remind them that just because something feels mystical doesn't mean it is...

[PavelTheGreat]

I am being honest with audience that Magic is just wonder of Nature, is marveling at strange anomalies that nevertheless are within our world. Many mysteries remain, that seem impossible but are not. This sort of "supernatural" is not different nature, just part of nature we have yet to realise.

I would love to know how you present mentalism. Do you lie and tell them your "natural" effect is real or your real demonstration is fake?

For me magic is simple: make them feel they have experienced something impossible to remind them that just because something feels mystical doesn't mean it is...

In Mentalism, nothing can ever be proved. Guessing right card (for instance) could be luck. Therefore, as performer, I would never assert is true, only demonstrate evidence and let audience decide. I am sure you know that most people will jump to conclusion, believing what they see.

My honest approach is to make reasonable argument for proposition, make prediction and show result. Pseudo-Science? Yes, but obeying all the rules.

[performer]

I wish I had time to read all this as it sounds terribly intellectual. I am also amused by two people arguing in what is not their first language and they do it very well indeed. I have no idea whose side I am on since I haven't read the posts. I don't have the same time available that I used to have.

I shall therefore sum up my attitude to the too perfect theory. I sort of believe in it but I am not going to drive myself nuts over it. All I have to do is be aware of it and instinctively use common sense when a situation arises where it may be relevant. I find these situations fairly rare anyway and if you have a good knowledge of magic you will know when and how to deal with it when the occasion arises once in a blue moon. Usually the creators will have taken care of the problem anyway.

[Paco Nagata]

But I say even Fantasy should be based on reality.

If Fantasy were based in reality it wouldn't be Fantasy.

More realistic is more believable.
And belief is necessary in order to amaze.

What?!
You DON'T need to believe in magic to be amazed by it. Actually, not believing in magic is precisely what makes you feel amazed. So, the more you don't believe in magic the more you get amazed from what you see in a good magician's performance.

Nobody is amazed by something he does not believe.

In your opinion, I guess.
I've never believed in magic, and that's what precisely made me feel amazed by magicians. In fact, one of the things that made me feel interested in becoming an amateur card magician was precisely being able to do something in which I don't believe. And I'm very happy with that because my family spectators feel amazed with my tricks, even though they don't believe in magic.

Then audience know is not Magic. Then no longer impressed. Disappointed. They laugh at Magic like joke. "You got me!" Very clever.

In my opinion, magicians shouldn't care about if spectators believe or not if it is real ot not. The magician JUST DO IT; after that I think that we (magicians) have to let spectators think wherever they want.

It is not paradox. It is mistake, is misnomer to call something Magic because Magic exists only in the mind of the spectator. It is false perception. This is only proper definition of Magic. Paradox is that magician is claiming to do something that can only be misunderstanding. That is to say, only illusion.

So magic IS a paradox; you contradict yourself; so to speak:
"to be not being able to be."
So that, it is only in the mine of spectators.

Maybe psychic energy is real, can read mind or move object. Now many folks will say this is "impossible" but they do not know that. This is perceive to be impossible, but might be true. To demonstrate this is to convince that is possible, and therefore is wonderful.

So, are you saying that magicians should make people believe that what they do is science, but not magic?
If so, it would be also a paradox, LIKE MAGIC, since people wouldn't have any reason to feel amazed by it.

@Pavel, and Paco; okay what do you do if seriously asked if you used real magic to do a trick? The audience sees the trick and feels they need to ask. What do you do or say?

Hello, Jonathan! Good question.
I would reply in a friendly and humorous way:
"I don't know! I just did it and it worked!"

I've never heard about Nantucket, but I have heard about that there is a good magician "wonder" around Ossining

I am rigorous logician, perhaps moreso than most. I defy notion that "supernatural" is legitimate subject for speculation. Is only that part of our nature that we do not perceive. is not and cannot be separate.

Are you saying that a magician that split a woman in two halves should transmit that it is a "nature that we do not perceive" instead of being just magic?

I am being honest with audience that Magic is just wonder of Nature, is marveling at strange anomalies that nevertheless are within our world. Many mysteries remain, that seem impossible but are not. This sort of "supernatural" is not different nature, just part of nature we have yet to realise.

Magic is whatever the spectators WANT to be, no what the magician say.
Remember: magic is in the mind of spectators.

[PavelTheGreat]

Let me give example. In empty box, object slowly appears until becomes solid, is removed from box and given to audience for verification.

This many will say is impossible. But who knows? Maybe someday we can materialise objects from atoms. The "magic" is the witness of something that is believe to be impossible. The "science" is the theory that would explain. And this will make the effect stronger because in addition to seeing it, audience also have reason to believe their senses (not suspect trick).

[Bill Duncan]

I really don't get that at all. If you were to demonstrate such a 'magic box' as a non-mystical thing the audience reaction would quite reasonably be comparable to someone getting a new iPhone.

Assuming they believed you.

[PavelTheGreat]

I really don't get that at all. If you were to demonstrate such a 'magic box' as a non-mystical thing the audience reaction would quite reasonably be comparable to someone getting a new iPhone.

Assuming they believed you.

I think that many magicians fail to understand psychology of audience. Their object is to do something supposedly impossible, that will still be impossible after is demonstrated. This is not amazing, this is nonsense. If you demonstrate, is possible. That is whole point of Science. If you are saying is still impossible, is trick. How can mere trick be more amazing than mind-blowing reality?

The effect of this illusion I mention above is precisely the same to the senses. "How did he do that?" Only difference is you give them reason to believe is possible, therefore maybe not trick. This is what we want, is it not? To deny that is just illusion. Because if this is the case, audience feel cheated.

You cannot convince audience yes, is impossible, but I do it. Is not trick, is real, but you can do what cannot be done. Rational human being needs to admit logically, if is really happening, is possible. Is no longer impossible. If still impossible, then is lie, is deceptuon.

You seem to think this is new idea of mine. No, many magicians have done this throughout history. I am sure that most of you do ths in your routines as well. The alchemists who claimed to convert base metals to gold were pseudo-scientists. Even Mark Lewis gives "explanation" for magic mouse. Each time you give false reason for effect, you are using pseudo-science.

Again, is not "paradox" to demonstrate the impossible, and still it be impossible. Is meaningless nonsense. It proves only that you don't know what you are talking about. If you claim to know how to do these things, you must acknowledge there is a way. Is therefore not impossible, is just secret.

[Paco Nagata]

I think that many magicians fail to understand psychology of audience. Their object is to do something supposedly impossible, that will still be impossible after is demonstrated. This is not amazing, this is nonsense. If you demonstrate, is possible. That is whole point of Science. If you are saying is still impossible, is trick. How can mere trick be more amazing than mind-blowing reality?

It is NECESSARY to keep it as an impossible thing to be MAGIC.

The effect of this illusion I mention above is precisely the same to the senses. "How did he do that?" Only difference is you give them reason to believe is possible, therefore maybe not trick. This is what we want, is it not? To deny that is just illusion. Because if this is the case, audience feel cheated.

When a magician perform magic, spectators usually say things like:
"It can't be!"
"it's impossible!"
"Unbelievable!"
"No way"
Why do you think they say things like this?
Because it must be consider as so; impossible.

You cannot convince audience yes, is impossible, but I do it. Is not trick, is real, but you can do what cannot be done. Rational human being needs to admit logically, if is really happening, is possible. Is no longer impossible. If still impossible, then is lie, is deceptuon.

Magicians DON'T NEED to convince anybody of anything they do, but just doing the show and letting spectators to think wherever they want about it.

You seem to think this is new idea of mine. No, many magicians have done this throughout history. I am sure that most of you do ths in your routines as well. The alchemists who claimed to convert base metals to gold were pseudo-scientists. Even Mark Lewis gives "explanation" for magic mouse. Each time you give false reason for effect, you are using pseudo-science.

When magicians explain tricks in a show is for comical purpose, like some Tamariz and Gaetan Bloom shows, for example.

Again, is not "paradox" to demonstrate the impossible, and still it be impossible. Is meaningless nonsens

"To be without being able to be" IS a paradox.

It proves only that you don't know what you are talking about.

Do you know what are you talking about?
Discredit people that don't think like you is despicable.
I could say as well that your statements proved that you didn't know what was you talking about, but I prefered not to say that because I've been well educated to not discredit anybody that has different opinions.

If you claim to know how to do these things, you must acknowledge there is a way. Is therefore not impossible, is just secret.

So, not magic.

[PavelTheGreat]

Paco Nagata: Magic is not a thing. It is false perception of reality. It is illusion. It is deception. It is real phenomenon that is called "magic" because of ignorance.

Here we have two types of magicians, one that acknowledge is possible by demonstrating it, and other that insist it is "magic" (impossible) because nobody knows how to do it.

Magician boasts of knowing how to do it, have secret knowledge. This is not paradox, this is mis-statement. You cannot claim is impossible if you know how to do it.

At best, you seem to be wise man who keep secrets. At worst, you are fool that can do things without knowing how. But nobody really knows what is impossible. This is dubious assumption. Science shows us things we thought were impossible. Is proving that belief in impossible is unfounded.

That is why I say is like Science-Fiction. What would seem impossible today may be discovered to be possible tomorrow.

What you are saying is that audience must be kept ignorant, must be encouraged to believe is not possible (even if it must be in order for you to do it). This make no sense. I would not risk losing respect of smart people by placating the not-so-smart. I like to entertain, and stimulate imagination, but not to dull the wits.

[Paco Nagata]

Paco Nagata: Magic is not a thing. It is false perception of reality. It is illusion. It is deception.

Don't you think that evebody knows that?
And that's precisely why people feel amazed when a magician do something that looks like magic.
Don't understand your point.

It is real phenomenon that is called "magic" because of ignorance.

If magic were a real phenomenon there wouldn't be no reason to feel amazed by it.
You always say the same, and I always reply the same. Does it worth?

Here we have two types of magicians, one that acknowledge is possible by demonstrating it, and other that insist it is "magic" (impossible) because nobody knows how to do it.

To me there's one type of magician: the one that do something that looks like magic (and DOES NOT insist that it is magic, but just do it and let spectators to take their conclusions). We are saying the same thing. Do you think it worth the time?

Magician boasts of knowing how to do it, have secret knowledge. This is not paradox, this is mis-statement. You cannot claim is impossible if you know how to do it.

Magicians DO NOT boast of knowing how to do it. Magicians are Artist that do something that looks like magic to entertain and amaze (in a friendly way). And they are not suppose to claim it is impossible, but the spectators themselves. (Again to say the same thing).

At best, you seem to be wise man who keep secrets. At worst, you are fool that can do things without knowing how. But nobody really knows what is impossible. This is dubious assumption. Science shows us things we thought were impossible. Is proving that belief in impossible is unfounded.

One of the wonders of the Art of Magic is precisely the feeling that it is dubious. Think about the great concept of "Perverse Magic."

That is why I say is like Science-Fiction. What would seem impossible today may be discovered to be possible tomorrow.

And stop being magic.

What you are saying is that audience must be kept ignorant, must be encouraged to believe is not possible (even if it must be in order for you to do it).

To amaze doing something that can't be done it's necessary to keep the audiecen ignoring the method, don't you think so?
I really don't understand your point.

This make no sense. I would not risk losing respect of smart people by placating the not-so-smart. I like to entertain, and stimulate imagination, but not to dull the wits.

Magicians DON'T MAKE FUN of spectators!
You like to entertain doing what? Magic I guess.

I understand why Bob Farmer said he felt baffled...

[PavelTheGreat]

Everyone is saying, "it must be impossible" or it is not Magic. I have already said, Magic is mistaken belief that impossible happens. Impossible cannot happen. Logical conclusion if something is impossible and you see it happen, is illusion, or is reality that is not yet understood

You say, if is understood, is not Magic. Yes! This is life. Get used to it. There is no way to show it can happen and at same tine imply that it cannot.

For Magic to persist, lack of understanding is necessary. But we can at least verify that something happens, even if we don't know how. Magic act is real event that gives false idea of what is happening. But audience see it, so they know it occur. You can't say "Look! I make it happen but is not possible".

You can acknowledge that experience is real (thus proving it can happen) without revealing true cause. This is still Art of Magic.

All Science is Magic at first. We wonder how it can be. But when we discover little bit about it, we accept. Still we have questions, unsolved mysteries to keep "magic" feeling.

You don't think scientists feel the "magic" of Dark Matter and Dark Energy? It is not necessary to doubt the existence of something in order to be amazed by it. The amazing comes from facing the fact that it must exist because we have evidence of it.

[Paco Nagata]

You not only are saying the same things once and again, but that in this case it looks too baffling.

You say: "Impossible cannot happen"
I reply: That's why it is MAGIC!

You say: "You can't say 'Look! I make it happen but is not popossible'."
I reply: (AGAIN) Magicians are NOT suppose to say that, but just do the show and let spectators taking their own conclusions.

You say: "You can acknowledge that experience is real (thus proving it can happen) without revealing true cause. This is still Art of Magic."
I reply: If you present it AS MAGIC, yes. If not, it is not Art of Magic, but Art of Science!

You say: "if is understood, is not Magic. Yes! This is life"
I reply: So, what are you doing in front of the spectator as a magician, MAGIC or SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS?

You say:
"All Science is Magic at first. We wonder how it can be. But when we discover little bit about it, we accept. Still we have questions, unsolved mysteries to keep "magic" feeling."
I reply:
This doesn't have anything to do with the topic of magic. Confusion.

You say:
"You don't think scientists feel the "magic" of Dark Matter and Dark Energy? It is not necessary to doubt the existence of something in order to be amazed by it. The amazing comes from facing the fact that it must exist because we have evidence of it."
I reply:
Again. Feeling amazed by science has absolutly nothing to do with feeling amazed by a magic show.
Your statements are increasingly confusing...

I'm not going to repeat again the same things.
I think I have been very clear regarding my position on this topic, and explained clearly as well why I think so.
If you want responses from me (since you started) read again what I have written, please (unless you say something different).

[PavelTheGreat]

You not only are saying the same things once and again, but that in this case it looks too baffling.

You say: "Impossible cannot happen"
I reply: That's why it is MAGIC!

You say: "You can't say 'Look! I make it happen but is not popossible'."
I reply: (AGAIN) Magicians are NOT suppose to say that, but just do the show and let spectators taking their own conclusions.

You say: "You can acknowledge that experience is real (thus proving it can happen) without revealing true cause. This is still Art of Magic."
I reply: If you present it AS MAGIC, yes. If not, it is not Art of Magic, but Art of Science!

You say: "if is understood, is not Magic. Yes! This is life"
I reply: So, what are you doing in front of the spectator as a magician, MAGIC or SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS?

You say:
"All Science is Magic at first. We wonder how it can be. But when we discover little bit about it, we accept. Still we have questions, unsolved mysteries to keep "magic" feeling."
I reply:
This doesn't have anything to do with the topic of magic. Confusion.

You say:
"You don't think scientists feel the "magic" of Dark Matter and Dark Energy? It is not necessary to doubt the existence of something in order to be amazed by it. The amazing comes from facing the fact that it must exist because we have evidence of it."
I reply:
Again. Feeling amazed by science has absolutly nothing to do with feeling amazed by a magic show.
Your statements are increasingly confusing...

I'm not going to repeat again the same things.
I think I have been very clear regarding my position on this topic, and explained clearly as well why I think so.
If you want responses from me (since you started) read again what I have written, please (unless you say something different).

No, you misunderstand. When I say "impossible cannot happen" I mean you will never see it. Suggestion that magician can make impossible happen is absurd.

That is why I apply scientific thinking to my routine. Because I know that people are aware of this. If I do it, this means one if two things. Either it is possible, or I am not doing it. I only pretend to do it.

You define magic as impossible. But tricks and illusions are very possible. Thus they are not Magic. You must realise that "impossible" is mere scepticism for mist people. They are frequently wrong. Therefore their belief that something is impossible does not make it so. And again it is not Magic.

If you are literally saying something has to be impossible, you are arguing against yourself. Is PERCEPTION of impossible that makes magic. Real impossible can never be done. Only that which audience mistakingly believe is impossible. Thus it is pointless to insist on impossible.

You will never see impossible. You will see possible but hard to understand. You will see illusion. But definition of "impossible" does not allow for magician to do it UNLESS. he then find way to make it possible. That is, to prove doubters wrong.

Word "impossible" has no meaning if magicians can do it. Ignoring meanings of words is not paradox, is nonsense.

Your definition of Magic is not valid. It is gibberish. Impossible by proper definition cannot be done by anyone (including magician). All we can do is that which is falsely supposed to be impossible, whether we are scientists or magicians. Why is this not good enough for you?

[Paco Nagata]

Why is this not good enough for you?

Why is not good enough for you that what magicians do is something that can't be done (so, a paradox), and because of that they are magicians and spectators feel amazed?

Why is not good enough for you that magic is magic because is NOT real, being the only reason spectators feel amazed in a magic show?

I told you that I'm not going to repeat the same things.
For more information read again what I have wrote...

[performer]

. Even Mark Lewis gives "explanation" for magic mouse. Each time you give false reason for effect, you are using pseudo-science.

I am terribly delighted to see that my name has been mentioned for two reasons. One is that I am an egotist of the first order, a condition which I am terribly proud of and secondly because it gives me a chance to do a bit of advertising thus:

https://www.lybrary.com/marmaduke-the-w ... 23433.html

In truth I am not really giving a false explanation of how the mouse works. It would be more accurate to say that I am giving half of the real explanation but omitting the other half. The trick would indeed not work without the "magic motor". However, it would also not work without the thread. I just chose to mention the "motor" but neglected to mention the thread.

Incidentally I should mention for historical purposes that the "Magic Motor" idea was conceived by Joe Stuthard.

For those of you who think I am going off topic I should mention that this subject is entirely relevant to the too perfect theory as when the punters get the trick home and try to do it they will find out very suddenly that their purchase was not too perfect. And serves them right too!

[Paco Nagata]

Word "impossible" has no meaning if magicians can do it. Ignoring meanings of words is not paradox, is nonsense.

Magic is nonsense! as a paradox.

Your definition of Magic is not valid. It is gibberish. Impossible by proper definition cannot be done by anyone (including magician). All we can do is that which is falsely supposed to be impossible, whether we are scientists or magicians. Why is this not good enough for you?

To me, gibberish fits much more on the things you say.

[PavelTheGreat]

Word "impossible" has no meaning if magicians can do it. Ignoring meanings of words is not paradox, is nonsense.

Magic is nonsense! as a paradox.

Your definition of Magic is not valid. It is gibberish. Impossible by proper definition cannot be done by anyone (including magician). All we can do is that which is falsely supposed to be impossible, whether we are scientists or magicians. Why is this not good enough for you?

To me, gibberish fits much more on the things you say.

I will keep it simple. If ONE PERSON CAN DO IT, is by definition possible There are no exceptions.

[performer]

I am delighted to see how our two non English first language speakers are getting on so swimmingly!

[Paco Nagata]

Word "impossible" has no meaning if magicians can do it. Ignoring meanings of words is not paradox, is nonsense.

Magic is nonsense! as a paradox.

Your definition of Magic is not valid. It is gibberish. Impossible by proper definition cannot be done by anyone (including magician). All we can do is that which is falsely supposed to be impossible, whether we are scientists or magicians. Why is this not good enough for you?

To me, gibberish fits much more on the things you say.

I will keep it simple. If ONE PERSON CAN DO IT, is by definition possible There are no exceptions.

More simple:
What magicians does ARE NOT SUPPOSED to be possible. And that's precisely why they DO MAGIC.

[PavelTheGreat]

Magic is nonsense! as a paradox.


To me, gibberish fits much more on the things you say.

I will keep it simple. If ONE PERSON CAN DO IT, is by definition possible There are no exceptions.

More simple:
What magicians does ARE NOT SUPPOSED to be possible. And that's precisely why they DO MAGIC.

What you are talking about is not The Impossible, but "The Possible for Me, Impossible for You". This is not same thing. Is possible for one man to lift 200 pound weight, impossible for another. This is not Magic, this is different potential (varying degree of knowledge, skill, strength, etc.).

Besides, most tricks are not impossible. Most are unlikely, or odds against (as predictions, finding selected card, ecaping from rope or handcuff or strait-jacket). And those that are impossible are obviously tricks.

Maybe a few simpletons believe you can do impossible (that is not trick), but not many. Most know it is trick, just not how is done. Is this Magic? This is nothing like impossible. Maybe inconceivable to untrained mind, but not impossible.

[Bob Farmer]

Pavel the Great: the willing suspension of disbelief is a key element of all drama, film, magic, books, etc. etc. etc. The audience forgets reality--that's the whole point--and that's what makes the wonder possible. Do audiences sitting in a movie theater think they are watching a series of still pictures projected at a speed that creates the impression of motion? Of cpourse not, they participate in the movie experience. Magic is the same. Your point of view is just silly and arguing against it is even sillier, so I'm done doing so. You are not a magician, you do not have the requisite magical point of view.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Maybe a few simpletons believe ...

Let's not berate those who believe.

So, did Santa bring the revised and annotated deluxe edition of Harmlessly Deceptive Quibbles?

Sound familiar? It's from here

[PavelTheGreat]

Pavel the Great: the willing suspension of disbelief is a key element of all drama, film, magic, books, etc. etc. etc. The audience forgets reality--that's the whole point--and that's what makes the wonder possible. Do audiences sitting in a movie theater think they are watching a series of still pictures projected at a speed that creates the impression of motion? Of cpourse not, they participate in the movie experience. Magic is the same. Your point of view is just silly and arguing against it is even sillier, so I'm done doing so. You are not a magician, you do not have the requisite magical point of view.

What point of mine do you call silly? I think you are referring to my counter-point to Mr. Nagata. His point is that effect is "not magic" if is not strictly impossible. I ask in response, then is it magic when audience knows it is trick? A trick is not impossible, is very likely.

My main point is simply that audience knows that effect is caused by practical means (not real magic). To disguise method as fascinating scientific discovery is best way to divert attention from simple solution.

Effect is not diminished by elaborate theory but enhanced, by making audience think instead of trick, if might be revolutionary concept.

Object is not to persuade crowd that explanation is true, but merely to stimulate imagination, inspire with awe using rational approach instead of mystic. I am not saying mine is the only way, I am saying it is alternative that works well on sceptics and cynics.

[MagicbyAlfred]

This discussion is a real brain teaser. For some reason, it reminds me of an anomaly we were asked to contemplate back when I studied philosophy in school:
If (as some conventional religious doctrines contend) God can do anything, can God make a stone heavier than He [and/or She] can lift?

[Paco Nagata]

Impossible, but "The Possible for Me, Impossible for You".

Well, you said that...
As a Magician I prefer do to something impossible. If you prefer to do something possible (as a Magician as well I presume) it is up to you.

[Paco Nagata]

Maybe a few simpletons believe you can do impossible (that is not trick), but not many. Most know it is trick, just not how is done. Is this Magic? This is nothing like impossible. Maybe inconceivable to untrained mind, but not impossible.

AGAIN!
You DON'T NEED TO BELIEVE IN MAGIC to feel amazed by a Magician performance. I told you before. Please, stop wasting your time and my time telling the same things again and again.
I told you I've never believed in magic; and that's precisely why I love magic! Watching it and doing it.
By the way... If I were you I wouldn't called "simpletons" the people that WANT to believe.
I think we should respect people that want to believe in anything they want.

[PavelTheGreat]

Maybe a few simpletons believe you can do impossible (that is not trick), but not many. Most know it is trick, just not how is done. Is this Magic? This is nothing like impossible. Maybe inconceivable to untrained mind, but not impossible.

AGAIN!
You DON'T NEED TO BELIEVE IN MAGIC to feel amazed by a Magician performance. I told you before. Please, stop wasting your time and my time telling the same things again and again.
I told you I've never believed in magic; and that's precisely why I love magic! Watching it and doing it.
By the way... If I were you I wouldn't called "simpletons" the people that WANT to believe.
I think we should respect people that want to believe in anything they want.

You are saying is necessary to believe that effect is impossible, or is not Magic. I am saying this is silly. Is not necessary to "do the Impossible" to amaze. We know this because we amaze all the time, and never once do The Impossible. We do unlikely things, we create illusions. These are not Impossibles, but impress as clever wit or skill (sleight of hand, etc.). When say Art of Magic you are talking of talent which is ability. When you say trick you are meaning practical way to achieve. When you say illusion you are saying shadow of The Impossible.

And do you believe this is objective concept? I believe it depends on point of view of spectator. One can scoff at Four Ace Trick (not think impossible), yet find power of Nature awesome.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Trickery can make many things appear to happen. Let's look at some differences;
Unlikely is finding a message in a bottle.
Clever and patient is building a ship in a bottle.
Surprising is getting a hard boiled egg into a bottle.
Magic is getting a half dollar into a bottle.

[PavelTheGreat]

Trickery can make many things appear to happen. Let's look at some differences;
Unlikely is finding a message in a bottle.
Clever and patient is building a ship in a bottle.
Surprising is getting a hard boiled egg into a bottle.
Magic is getting a half dollar into a bottle.

I think it is fair to conclude that the "Impossiblists" merely wish to deny the practice means by which they achieve their effects. Above, you distinguish building ship in bottle from getting half dollar coin in bottle. In reality, both are accomplished by mechanical means. Only difference is model maker admits how is done.

Art of Magic is then not to do The Impossible, but to deny The Possible. To confuse audience so they don't think of solution. Fine. This is what I do. I think many magicians are afraid to let audience try to figure out trick, so they pretend is nothing they can know. Don't bother, is superbatural, is Magic, is impossible. Is like saying, "Nobody here but we chickens". This kind of secrecy is disgusting to me personally. I like to educate, not keep people ignorant. Those that jealously guard secrets are not helpful to human race. I would encourage my audience to think. Entertain yes, but not stultify. If someone figure out how is done, I am happy for him. I would rather inspire people to be smart than to turn their brains to mush.

Light-hearted deception is okay if it teases the brain, stimulates to think. But to make folks think is hopeless to understand is not good in my opinion.

[Paco Nagata]

You are saying is necessary to believe that effect is impossible, or is not Magic. I am saying this is silly.

AGAIN!
Magic IS a silly thing! It doesn't do any difference.
If you like to waste your time repeating and repeating the same things it's up to you; anything you have said has been already replied in my previous posts.

Is not necessary to "do the Impossible" to amaze.

If the amazing thing is because of MAGIC, yes, AGAIN, it is necessary to be suppose to be impossible.

We know this because we amaze all the time, and never once do The Impossible.

For god sake! Magic is not the only thing that makes people feel amazed, of course!
Do I have to tell you that?

When say Art of Magic you are talking of talent which is ability. When you say trick you are meaning practical way to achieve. When you say illusion you are saying shadow of The Impossible.

AGAIN!
Art of Magic is to do something that is supposed not to be possible to do. And that's why people see it as MAGIC. What you are talking about is a different thing; so to speak, people with special skills such as jugglers, contortionists, escapists...

And do you believe this is objective concept?

Mine? Yes, totally objective. Do you think yours is objective?

I believe it depends on point of view of spectator.

Gee! Don't you say!
I've said that more than once for sure.

One can scoff at Four Ace Trick (not think impossible), yet find power of Nature awesome.

That is. Spectators can think whatever they want. If they think it is not magic, it is not magic. If they think it is magic, it is magic.
Likewise, you can say whatever you want as well.
And, what I say is that MAGIC is doing something that is supposed to be impossible to do.

[Paco Nagata]

I think it is fair to conclude that the "Impossiblists" merely wish to deny the practice means by which they achieve their effects.

"Possiblists" merely wish to do... What? Magic?

Art of Magic is then not to do The Impossible, but to deny The Possible. To confuse audience so they don't think of solution. Fine. This is what I do. I think many magicians are afraid to let audience try to figure out trick, so they pretend is nothing they can know. Don't bother, is superbatural, is Magic, is impossible. Is like saying, "Nobody here but we chickens".

The Art of Magic is to do something that is supposed to be impossible; magic.

This kind of secrecy is disgusting to me personally.

So, why do you do magic?...
Do you do magic?

I like to educate, not keep people ignorant.

So?
What does it have to do with the Art of Magic?
AGAIN and AGAIN, magicians don't make fun of spectators. They only do something that are supposed not to be possible to do, just to amaze and entertain. If you want to educate become a professor...

Those that jealously guard secrets are not helpful to human race. I would encourage my audience to think. Entertain yes, but not stultify. If someone figure out how is done, I am happy for him. I would rather inspire people to be smart than to turn their brains to mush.

So... ... Is that the "Art of Magic" according to you?

Light-hearted deception is okay if it teases the brain, stimulates to think. But to make folks think is hopeless to understand is not good in my opinion.

In your opinion.