The macro and the micro; boundaries of possibilities

 

     There is a well-known meandering about "see this piece of dust, what if it were a world for very small people living inside it ... and what if we are that piece of dust to some place so vast we cannot comprehend it." The Ant-Man movies kind of echo this type of suggested microworlds though not the macroworlds (not yet, at least). (For that matter, Dr. Seuss' "whoville" is in the same category.) 

     Is such a microworld really possible? Not from the science that we accept at present. We have experimental evidence in support of a hierarchy of matter and energy. From a wooden table to a quark, from matter via relativity to energy and back.

     But the nature of science is to create multiple questions every time we decide upon a tentative answer (all are susceptible to replacement, or enhancement, upon new discoveries). As Arthur C. Clarke said in his "third law" -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". This can be inverted to indicate that "what appears to be magic, may be explained at some future time by use of technology advanced beyond the current status".

     The word "magic" bothers some people -- so it is fine, as far as I am concerned, to call it "future science" but that would be cumbersome, so I will continue to call it magic.

     If one considers the things around us, how many would have been considered magic 500 years ago? Sure, one thinks of computers and smartphones but even a sewing machine would have aroused amazement (hopefully not burning at the stake). Washing machines, microwaves, refrigerators, electric bulbs, asphalt, and so on and so on.

     Arthur C. Clarke also has a less famous "first law" which indicates "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong".

     Turning around and facing the future, the only thing that I can be certain of is that it will be different. Hopefully better for more people -- but definitely different. Assuming that the Jenga stack of technological society survives and continues, imagination is literally our only limit.

     I am most fascinated at the "hows". How does the mind really work? Just how do microbacterial colonies within our digestive system adjust our bodies, our moods, even how long we live? In structured medical studies, the "placebo" (perhaps sugar water or tablets) group often still improves -- how? Science recognizes a relationship between matter and energy. Is there a relationship between mind and how matter and energy are perceived (and, perhaps, manipulated)?

     During periods of introspection (I don't allow myself to linger long as I have to live in the world that most recognize), I will think of that table and break it down to molecules and bonds and then down to atoms and particles and I get lost in amazement that my hand is able to hold a baseball. How does all this interact to make it possible? How is one set of organized atoms and particles able to interact with another set of organized atoms and particles? Most of it is "empty" space. How does one grouping act as a solid -- and interact with other solids?

     I'm not a physicist and have only somewhat more knowledge about it than most educated laypeople. I am sure that, on a mathematical basis with formulas and theorems, there are approaches to answers to these questions -- possibly involving valences and the way bonding energies interact. But, for my "money", all of this is still in the region of magic. It is something that happens every day and few think twice about it but it still ends up in that area of magic (or "future science").

    To quote Buzz Lightyear -- "to infinity and beyond".

Hocus Pocus: The Distance Between Magic to Science

    Arthur C. Clarke, famous science fiction and science fact writer, once said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
     Although stories told about witches primarily exist from what is, in the West, often called "the Dark Ages", the underlying problem continues to exist. Someone -- especially a social loner who is doing something not considered "normal" -- has knowledge and experience beyond that of others. If it is useful, they may be allowed to exist to be used by others. That is, they allow it to be used until something bad happens and they use the target of their fear and ignorance as a scapegoat and attack them.
     Hanging on my waist, I have a device that has computational power much greater that that of a 1951/52 UNIVAC that occupied an entire room 65 years ago. If you took that same smartphone and presented it in the town of Salem, Massachusetts 325 years ago, you could look forward to being on the non-preferred side of the Witch Trials.  However, if you took the smartphone back to 1952, most of the technology would be totally unexplainable. Depending on your audience, they would declare it to be an amazing fake, a stage device, or -- yes, magic. Very few would believe that it was real but you most likely would not be subject to being burned at a stake.
      Science consists of building upon previously discovered knowledge. Any jump in knowledge is typically met with suspicion. Einstein's theory of general relativity was a jump in understanding. It took years to be accepted and the "in-between" steps are still being proven even unto this day (2017 Nobel Prize being given for detection of "gravitational waves"). Leonardo Da Vinci was sufficiently wise to keep most of his ideas and discoveries isolated within his journals. His public face was largely concerned with his works of art for the Church and the rich. Since it didn't happen, we cannot know for certain, but I suspect that if he had succeeded in building, and demonstrating, a functional flying machine it would have had, at best, very mixed reactions from the Church and public.
     The split in perception between science and magic works both directions. Something that would be considered "commonplace" within current society (even if really understood by only a small subsection of the people) would be considered "magic" in the past. When people envision things in the future, it is often classified into "science fiction" UNLESS it is some ability or behavior that does not have an obvious basis in current science. Flying cars are science fiction. Functional "spells" are magic.
     Current, scientifically acceptable, spells are called algorithms. They piece together various simple instructions into logical frameworks and decision networks and come out with a "game App" or a "streaming video App" or a "communal workspace App". All of these would have been considered magic in the past. I will make the guess that there are a lot of things, about which we speculate as magic, that will also become commonplace in the future. In order for applications (Apps) to work, however, the convenient microcomputer/smartphone must also be present. Will it be true that, in order for Harry Potter's spells to become valid that some other foundation device must be created?
     What ideas of the future would you classify as magic? Do you see scientific paths to have them realized? What ideas would be the most inexplicable if sent to the past?