Do you believe in Magic?

Thank you, Geoff, for your substantive response. As it turns out, I don't have an opinion about whether there are manufacturers of audiophile products who deliberately deceive their potential customers with explanations they know to be false. I certainly believe there are people who WOULD do this, but I have no idea if there are people who ARE doing it.

As you can surmise from the fact that I initiated this thread, I find the subject of Magic fascinating. By 'Magic' I mean: any effect not explainable by known physical laws. Some audiophiles believe that any effect not explainable by known physical laws is nothing more than placebo. I do not believe that.

I believe that the universe is much cleverer than we are, so you don't have to go very far to encounter the limit of knowledge and understanding. On the other side of that limit is Magic. I'm not talking about effects that are somehow non-physical or metaphysical. I'm talking about effects that are beyond the limits of currently available explanations.

I would imagine that, as the designer and manufacturer of Machina Dynamica products, you know very well the limits I'm describing.

Bryon

"I believe that the universe is much cleverer than we are, so you don't have to go very far to encounter the limit of knowledge and understanding. On the other side of that limit is Magic. I'm not talking about effects that are somehow non-physical or metaphysical. I'm talking about effects that are beyond the limits of currently available explanations."

The limit of knowledge and understanding for whom? It's a little presumptuous to say we know all about science, or all about physics. And if we don't know the explanation for some Magical device, do we assume that someone out there, maybe at Harvard or MIT or NASA, must know?

"I would imagine that, as the designer and manufacturer of Machina Dynamica products, you know very well the limits I'm describing."

I prefer not think in terms of limits, myself. Yes, I realize Dirty Harry said, "a man's got to know his limitations."

hi frogman:

you quoted geoffkait regarding knowledge not being absolute.

in matematics and other tautological endeavors knowledge is absolute. knowledge must be true and a certain, and be subject to proof.

if you know something it must be true and you must be certain about it and be able to peove it, else, there is a probability that what is claimed as knowledge is false.

in all things abstract knowledge is an absolute.

in the empirical world, information is acquired by the method of induction.

the information so acquired cannot be known absolutely, because there is always the exception which has yet to occur.

this is an argument of an epistemological nature.

i am a skeptic, and while i have confidence in the stimuli i perceive and make decisions based upon them, and may learn something new every day, i don't ever claim to know them, for knowledge cannot come from sense perception.

my skepticism could relate to the topic of magic , in that i may perceive something i cannot explain. such a case would indeed be magic. however, there is a chance i may make an error and hear something which does not exist. since i am not certain that i hear something but am confident of it, one is dealing with a stochastic process.

of course it follows that if i hear something, e.g., when i change a cable, i may not be able to explain why i hear it, or my explanations may be invalid. so, i do believe in magic, because of the unreliability of perception.

knowledge requires absolute proof.

knowledge pertains mainly to logic, mathematics and definitions

i would like to add another point.

most explanations of why things work, or explanations as to the bases for changes in sound are hypothetical, because they cannot be proven absolutely.

again, in the world of audio, probability rules, not knowledge.

03-08-12: Geoffkait
The limit of knowledge and understanding for whom? It's a little presumptuous to say we know all about science, or all about physics.

I honestly don't know what you're saying here. Who is the "we" you are referring to? Is your comment supposed to mean...

It is presumptuous of you, Bryon, to imply that you know all about science, or all about physics.

If so, I implied nothing of the kind. Quite the contrary.

Or does the "we" simply mean "people"? And hence your comment means...

People do not know everything there is to know about the universe. To presume otherwise is wrong.

If so, that was MY point.

And if we don't know the explanation for some Magical device, do we assume that someone out there, maybe at Harvard or MIT or NASA, must know?

Again, I don't know what you're saying here. Are you saying...

Even though YOU don't know a scientific explanation for a "Magical device," someone else might. For example, someone at Harvard, NASA, etc.

Or...

Even the people at Harvard, NASA, etc. might not know the scientific explanation for a "Magical device."

It would help if you would set aside rhetorical questions and cryptic remarks and simply state, in a declarative sentence, what you are attempting to express.

Bryon