Magic Powers Verification.

All that means is that you “flip a coin”.

And when you merely “flip a coin”, you might get it right. But to know that you got it right by more than merely statistical probability, you have to experience it beyond mere statistical probability. And once isn’t enough for merely flipping a coin. Statistics requires multiple trials.

That sounds familiar :-k lol.

Did you have a vague Idea of the answers, or none at all? none being not good.

Wasn’t flipping a coin. Flipping a coin is 1/2 odds.
Essentially what I am doing is flipping a coin 128 times and it landing on the same side each time.

Hadn’t the vaguest idea of the answers, only the voice in my head was very clear which answer was the right answer, so I circled them without reading the answers.

The test hasn’t been graded yet, so we gotta wait 2 weeks for the answer to this. If they lose the test or don’t grade it I’m gonna be very pissed.

Statistical unlikeliness isn’t proof of “magic”.

Which is tantamount to saying, there is no proof. The demonstration of magic plays out on the same physical plane as the spiritual plane, if there is some credence to that.

Why not give credence to the notion to there is more to reality then what can be verified? To not to admit to that gives equally disturbing thoughts , such as, whatever there is, only exists if it can be verified.
The probability between the pros and cons of either argument is at least as tenuous as flipping a coin.

And binary logic supercedes the laws of chance, of interpreting probability demonstrations, and trying to interpret them. The reason for that is, if probability was based more then on a flip of the coin, and probability per verification could mean an interaction between physical and hidden dimensions, then a very gifted man or an evil genius the type Descartes described, could in fact cause vast destruction. But
This is not so, evil geniuses can not cause world wide catastrophe, only the destruction of their mind and life.

‘Those that God wishes to destroy, first make mad’.

".

Seems we have some neighhhsayers in the audience.

Yes we must distinguish two separate principles: 1. Rational skepticism and 2. The Unknown. It is both the case, at the same time, that we should exercise rational limitation of our beliefs as well as exercise openness to possibility and the presently unknown-unverifiable.

The fact that these two separate principles are both true is confusing for most people. Most people want to establish a mutual exclusivity between them, but that isn’t the case at all. In fact, ideally, the two principles would work together and support one another.

But regardless of that, believing in magic simply because something unlikely happened is stupid. But it would also be stupid to claim that “magic” (something presents unknown-unverifiable) is never the case or that extreme statistical unlikelihood doesn’t at least open up a possibility for what can be called “magic”.

If such a possibility occurs to you, that is a sign for further investigation, and not a sign to simply be converted into a “believer”.

This is the kind of black and white thinking that is the problem, in both sides (the naive believer or the naive skeptic).

Naive believers (religious people) and naive skeptics (scientists, nihilists) are much closer to each other than either are to philosophy… which is to say that both forms of naïveté are really the exact same thing, and not at all approaching truth.

There was 4 questions with 4 options (16 options total). The voice in my head told me which options to choose without actually googling or reading the questions.
If they are all right, then good sense says magic is real. Anything else is naive.

It’s like, 8 times out of 10 an object falls due to gravity, so we say gravity is real. And 2 out of 10 times it floats into the wind. So we say wind, is the causation, and the voices in my head are the causation.

That doesn’t even remotely make sense.

There’s no such thing as magic.

No one asked you James.

How do you know?

Have you defined ‘magic’ in such a way that it simply is de facto, necessarily impossible, therefore magic is a meaningless (empty) concept? If so, then you are being dishonest here.

If you have not done that, then how would you define magic, and how would you know that this thing you defined is necessarily unreal?

I don’t recall anyone asking you, R.

I know because children learn that shit before they’re old enough to ride a bike. It doesn’t take a fucking philosopher to realize that magic isn’t real.

Your mother.