---
title: Sufficiently Advanced Technology Is Often Distinguishable From Magic
description: I see what Arthur C. Clarke was getting at, but I don't think I agree.
date: 2022-05-14
draft: true
---

import Sidenote from '@components/Sidenote.astro';

Arthur C. Clarke is famous for many things, among them being his dictum that "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."<Sidenote>Which I had always thought of as "Clarke's Law", I looked it up when I went to write this and discovered that it's actually Clarke's _Third_ Law. Apparently he has two others. I don't know that I've ever run into them, though. Maybe he should have led with this one?</Sidenote> I'm often happy to take issue with Clarke's opinions, so today I want to put this one on the chopping block.

Before we get started, a note: the pedantic may argue that by "indistinguishable" he simply means "from the outside," as it were. That is, if you're an untrained citizen of the Galactic Empire or whatever, your knowledge of how a hyperdrive works is so far removed from the reality that it might as well be magic - certainly you couldn't build a new one from scratch, or even fix a broken one. That's as may be, but it's not the interpretation that I want to address here, for two reasons: 1) it's boring, and 2) I don't think that's what Clarke actually meant when he coined the phrase.

In fact, I think Clarke was thinking more along these lines: Advanced technology (by which I mean, technology that is more advanced than anything we have today) and magic both postulate that the impossible is possible. In the case of non-fundamental advances you can kind of see how this might come about, like an economically feasible Mach 3 passenger aircraft, for instance. But as technology gets further and further from the current state of the art, and encompasses more and more that's not just "we don't know if it's possible" but "we actually think it's impossible" the divorce from reality becomes so complete that it's _just as profound_ as a wizard who levitates and summons fireballs out of the air by sheer power of will.<Sidenote>It's also interesting to note that Clarke wrote primarily _near-future_ sci-fi - his most famous work is set _twenty years ago_, for goodness sake! But perhaps that has something to do with his apparent disdain for grander flights of sci-fi fancy.</Sidenote>

That's what I'm disagreeing with. In particular I take issue with the term "indistinguishable," because it implies there is _no basis_ by which the technology in question can be distinguished from magic. I think, however, that there usually _is_ such a distinction, and in fact it's quite easy to make. And it doesn't have anything to do with _how_ advanced the technology is, which may be why it didn't occur to Clarke, but this is my blog so I get to be as nitpicky as I like.<Sidenote>Yes, I know that I just implied above that I'm above pedantry, so what? Still my blog, and I don't have to be consistent unless I want to.</Sidenote>

To me, the distinction between technology and magic has always hinged more on the _mechanism_ of the thing than its degree of connection with reality. To wit: Does the [magic, technology] constitute an _intrinsic_ or _extrinsic_ means for someone to influence the world around them? If intrinsic, then it's magic. If extrinsic, then it's technology.

When I say "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" I'm mostly thinking of the origin of the power. An intrinsic power is something natural that the user is born with, while an extrinsic power is conferred by artifice - usually some sort of constructed device. There are definitely edge cases that blur the line between these distinctions, but they're mostly pretty clear when you're looking at individual examples.

For example, a wizard who moves objects by focusing his mind and exerting his will on the universe is using magic. A starship captain who moves objects using a tractor beam is using technology, because the tractor beam constitutes an _extrinsic_ means of interacting with the world. The only intrinsic tools that the starship captain uses are (presumably) hands to manipulate controls of some sort.<Sidenote>There could, of course, be some kind of computer-mediated direct-brain interface, but that definitely still counts as technology since, again, the computer is merely reacting to _normal human actions_, in this case thoughts.</Sidenote>

Interestingly, by this definition there's no need for magic to be restricted to a certain subset of the population. You could easily imagine a world where _everyone_ has the power of telekinesis or something, or even one of many powers, and in fact it would be quite interesting to explore the ramifications of such a world. Mostly, however, stories that portray magic as we've defined it portray it as something available to only a few.

## Original form

Clarke's Law<Sidenote>Actually it's Clarke's Third Law, there are two others. Shows what I know. I will, however, continue to refer to it as "Clarke's Law" for the time being, since it's easier to type and I'm lazy.</Sidenote>, i.e. "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," is a well-known dictum in science fiction. I've never had a significant reason to disagree with it in the past, but recently I read _Elder Race_ by Adrian Tchaikovsky and it got me thinking. The upshot is, I've come to the conclusion that (within the world of fiction, of course) sufficiently advanced technology actually _is_ distinguishable from magic, in fact almost always so. Moreover, the distinction is really quite simple: Does the "magic" operate through _extrinsic_ or _intrinsic_ means? Does the magic-user act by operating a device that acts on the natural world, or does he simply exert his will and the world conforms to his desire? If the former, it's probably technology, and if the latter, it's probably magic.

Before I get started though, the book: _Elder Race_ is quite enjoyable, and not very long either, so you should definitely read it if you're into either sci-fi _or_ fantasy, because it manages to be both. In the interest of avoiding too many spoilers I won't go into too much detail, but the main conceit of the book is spoiled by the jacket blurb anyway, so I won't worry too much about that one. In brief: _Elder Race_ is an enjoyable and fairly in-depth exploration of Clarke's Law. It spends a lot of time considering not just the basic aspects (Look, flying machines! Must be magic!) but deeper questions, like: how would you even go about explaining technology to someone from an un-technological society? 

Unsurprisingly, it comes away with more or less the conclusion that you can't really: the technologically unaware will continue to regard your flying machines as magical conveyances held aloft by arcane powers, your radio as deep wizardry that allows you to commune with distant spirits, and so on. You can try to explain it all you like, but if you say "science" your listener will hear "magic," and if you say "it's just an understanding of natural forces built up over generations" they will hear "it's just hidden knowledge of the secrets of the universe, handed down from the ancients." There is a communications barrier that is, according to this view, insurmountable without starting at the very beginning and working your way up.

Now, this may or may not be true, but I'd like to take issue with the more general formulation of Clarke's Law. I've always taken the "indistinguishable" bit to mean that _no one_ can distinguish the two, not just that _those unfamiliar with technology_ can make the distinction. I don't think that's the case, though. I think that you _can_ distinguish between magic and technology, and that the distinction is trivial at least in many cases. The question you can usually ask, and often get a clear answer to, is: "Does the [magic/technology] operate by means of devices, or does it rely on internal powers of the user?" if the former, it's technology. If the latter, it's magic.

Let's take some examples. On the magic side, think of some of the classic swords-and-sorcery canon: _Earthsea_, _Wheel of Time_<Sidenote>Much as I dislike it, it's undeniably genre-defining.</Sidenote>, _Prydain Chronicles_, _Chronicles of Amber_, _Belgariad_, and so on.<Sidenote>You might notice that I've skipped LOTR here: don't worry, it will show up later.</Sidenote> All of these have in common that magic is effected by a _direct act of will_. There is no mediating device or artifice, the magician simply exerts his will on the universe. There may be techniques involved, or limits to what the magic can accomplish, but there's fundamentally just some direct connection between the wizard's will and the natural world that other people don't have, and that's what makes him a wizard.

On the other hand, we have sci-fi. Note that a sci-fi story's position on the technology/magic scale is distinct from where it sits on the "sci-fi hardness" scale, although the two are often correlated: sci-fi that incorporates magic, as defined here, tends to be on the softer side. Still, I can name some examples of sci-fi that's unquestionably pure technology. A lot of Heinlein's stuff qualifies, for example _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_. Bujold's "Vorkosiverse" (I don't think that's the official name) also qualifies, as far as I can remember, and serves as a good example of the distinction between "soft" sci-fi and "magical" sci-fi: it's very soft, but doesn't incorporate any magic. _Ender's Game_. _Snow Crash_ (ok, that one wasn't too hard, most near-future sci-fi is necessarily free of magic.) Plenty of short stories, although for some reason I can't think of any right now except for _Nerves_.

I'm cherry-picking here, of course. That's ok though, I'm not intending these examples to be an argument, more a set of examples that you can nod your head to and think "Yes, these clearly deal with magic/technology." But there are plenty of things that aren't so clear-cut, so let's take a look at those and see what we make of them.

# Built-in technology

What do you call it when the magic-or-technology operates by means of something that _is_ a natural part of the person or animal? What if there was a massive multi-generational genetic engineering effort that resulted in a race of psionic people? Is that magic, or technology?

This one's tough, but I think I have to come down on the side of "it's still technology." 

Sci-fi, but actually magic
  - Psi in Federation stories
  - MCU
  - Star Wars
  - Cloak of Aesir
  - Madeleine L'Engle stuff
  - The Stars My Destination / The Demolished Man

Magic, but really technology
  - Harry Potter?
