The Too Perfect Theory

[Paco Nagata]

That is why I have said, again and again, that layman are our teachers.

That's a very good point, Alfred!
Certainly, a witty and nice observation.

[PavelTheGreat]

Paco Nagata; Obviously you do not like Science or Logic. Perhaps because you fear they will expose your method. Or just because you are not good with them.

Whole point of Paradox is that it is difficult to understand how two things can seem to oppse AND YET BOTH BE TRUE. if one is found to be false, there is no wonder. Mystery solved. One is mere illusion.

The concepts of Possibility and Impossibility are not paradoxical opposites. They are definitive opposites. If you confuse them, you need to write new definition, that say, Possible is that which can be done, unless is Impossible. But then Impossible can be Possible too. So basically same. Use either word. It can mean what you wish. This is convenient in debate, because it let you speak with fork tongue. You can be wrong, but right! Your opponent can be right, but wrong.

This is character of your entire argument. Shifting to say THIS IS THAT when it suit you. I have had many debates and I know this type of person. They say what sound clever for a moment, though it contradict what they say already. I point out inconsistency, they deny. They go round trying to confuse while saying I confuse.

You ask why I think your definition of Magic us bad. Is because (like I say above), you use words that make no sense. Neither definition nor argument is good if words are inaccurate.

Impossible cannot mean Possible. When you say Impossible, you must mean something than cannot be done ever, by any means. By anyone. Unless you qualify statement as such: Is impossible for me. Maybe possible in future.

To say ""Do the Impossible" is literally mis-statenent. It defy the proper definition of words. If there is meaning to this, is only that we strive to do The Impossible. If we fail, is still impossible. If we succeed, is now Possible.

Regardless of word (Magic, Paradox, Impossible) definition must be clear, not ambivalent.

Magic: Apparent accomplishment of astonishing deed by mysterious (or hidden) means. This could be coin vanish, or ACAAN, or "mind reading" (includes all kinds of magical performance).

Paradox: The anomaly of two or more opposing facts (not fallacies).

I say your definitions are bad because you do not adhere to meanings of words that you use. You think they mean something else, or wish that they do in context of current argument.

[El Mystico]

The Too Perfect Theory is fifty years old this year. It's amazing how it is still going strong. I wrote a blog about it here https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/blog/ ... ous-theory

[Dave Le Fevre]

You know, sometimes magicians can be guilty of what I would call "magician-think."

I'm always aware of Magician's Guilt.

And in this instance, despite that fact that I'm never caught during performance, I still have to observe that the method was obvious to me the first time that I saw the effect. So there must some spectators for whom its obvious. That's all.

Some methods are obvious to us because of our knowledge of conjuring. I remember the first time I saw an effect that used roughing fluid, nearly sixty years ago. I had no idea how it was achieved. But while methods such as roughing fluid, Elmsley Count, and perhaps mis-pipped cards, cannot be easily reverse engineered by a lay audience, other methods can be. And this effect is one such.

So, Dave, listen to your wife - she knows!

I read this to my wife. She agrees with you.

[Paco Nagata]

Pavel,
as is becoming the custom, you talk for yourself without even answering what I said; you only talk about what suits you besides confusing our conversation topic, instead of being clair and easy:

- Your point is to show magic as possible.
- Mine is to show magic as impossible.

-By means of your point, you are not expressing MAGIC, but a BRAIN GAME; a total misunderstanding of the Art of Magic.
- By means of my point, I pretend consider magic as IT IS; fantastic; not real. So that,
magicians DO WHAT CAN'T BE DONE; a perfect paradox.

That's it. Easy.

But you are too obsessively busy in criticise my paradox definition. Actually, our entire conversation has being focused just on you saying that it's not a paradox, just to bother me, because is the only clear thing you say.

By the way, the definition of paradox fits what I say. I don't understad what do you mean about that (again trying to confuse me).
And the following is the definition of magic according to Cambridge Dictionary:

Magic: The use of special powers to make things happen that would usually be impossible, such a in stories for children.

Do you see the word "apparent"?

[Paco Nagata]

The Too Perfect Theory is fifty years old this year. It's amazing how it is still going strong. I wrote a blog about it here https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/blog/ ... ous-theory

Very interesting! I read it.
Thanks for sharing it!

[PavelTheGreat]

Pavel,
as is becoming the custom, you talk for yourself without even answering what I said; you only talk about what suits you besides confusing our conversation topic, instead of being clair and easy:

- Your point is to show magic as possible.
- Mine is to show magic as impossible.

-By means of your point, you are not expressing MAGIC, but a BRAIN GAME; a total misunderstanding of the Art of Magic.
- By means of my point, I pretend consider magic as IT IS; fantastic; not real. So that,
magicians DO WHAT CAN'T BE DONE; a perfect paradox.

That's it. Easy.

But you are too obsessively busy in criticise my paradox definition. Actually, our entire conversation has being focused just on you saying that it's not a paradox, just to bother me, because is the only clear thing you say.

By the way, the definition of paradox fits what I say. I don't understad what do you mean about that (again trying to confuse me).
And the following is the definition of magic according to Cambridge Dictionary:

Magic: The use of special powers to make things happen that would usually be impossible, such a in stories for children.

Do you see the word "apparent"?

You are shifting again. You quote from a definition of Magic that is fantasy ("stories for children"). This is not Art of Magic by magicians.

Your argument fails because you base it on misconstruction of language. I confess that I am "obsessed" with this problem, because I think it is root cause of many mistakes.

You think people are amazed when you say, "Look, I do the impossible!' But they are merely confused, as if to say "Wow! I thought the impossible could not be done. But now you tell me you ate doing it! Who knew?

This is misinformation, you are stunning people with implication that Impossible is possible but still impossible. It is not so much the act that astonishes, but the wonder of how this nonsense can be true.

[Paco Nagata]

You are shifting again.

You don't have arguments. So, you're starting to create your own fantasies!

You quote from a definition of Magic that is fantasy ("stories for children"). This is not Art of Magic by magicians.

You are confusing again. That's the concept of Magic, and what I mean. You're playing with me.
Do you know what? I knew you were going to say that, because, like The Too Perfect Theory, you only have got a solution.

Your argument fails because you base it on misconstruction of language. I confess that I am "obsessed" with this problem, because I think it is root cause of many mistakes.

Problem? Your problem, I guess.
The Art of Magic is (and has been) always OK with the concept of magic as a Fantasy.

You think people are amazed when you say, "Look, I do the impossible!'

People amazed when they see something impossible that keeps all the time being impossible in their mind. I already said that, but you only read what you want.

This is misinformation, you are stunning people with implication that Impossible is possible but still impossible.

As easy as to see it as a paradox.

It is not so much the act that astonishes, but the wonder of how this nonsense can be true.

Yes, how The Impossible can be done when I (the spectator) know that it is impossible.

[MagicbyAlfred]

"Dave Le Fevre Wrote: "And in this instance, despite that fact that I'm never caught during performance [of the sponge balls], I still have to observe that the method was obvious to me the first time that I saw the effect. So there must some spectators for whom its obvious. That's all."

So I don't think I can really argue with that. But I will say, I am thrilled to have the sponge balls in my performing repertoire. Life without them (and my beloved sponge bunnies) would be a bleak, empty, hollow and utterly meaningless existence.

[performer]

Bear in mind there are also people who will watch you and although they are terribly impressed they may not show it. Some people are like that (especially magicians) in that they are not natural reactors. Do not jump to the wrong conclusion though. Just because they do not react does not mean they are not impressed. Also when people heckle or make smart alec remarks that does not mean they are not impressed either. If people are watching intently that is usually a good sign whether they react well or not. If, however they are not paying attention then is the time you will realise that something is amiss.

[Leo Garet]

Previous Performer Post....

One the button.

Meanwhile, I love the sound of alliteration in the morning.

[Joe Lyons]

Meanwhile, I love the sound of alliteration in the morning.

Sound like victory?