Debugging?

Nov 19, 2006 09:45

So, I have a question: how do you debug magick ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 23

azurelunatic November 19 2006, 18:10:48 UTC
First you need a working and debugged system of divination. Then, once that is Known Good, you can use *that* to query on each module of the ritual.

Reply

prezzey November 19 2006, 19:11:26 UTC
...though this would still need a series of trials, because I have yet to see a system of divination that is invariably accurate. But I mostly agree with this.

(Also, you will want to do trials blind to target, but this is easy with a computer)

Reply

vaxjedi November 19 2006, 19:23:44 UTC
That's the trick, isn't it? Not only have I yet to see a divination method that is even mostly accurate, I have yet to find one that is in any way definite - i.e. giving a definite answer.

Reply

prezzey November 19 2006, 19:53:10 UTC
If you can achieve results above chance, then you can use that given you have time to do lots and lots of blind trials.

Or are you thinking about definiteness in giving either a yes or a no? Many divination systems give you that, eg. pendulums.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

kermix November 19 2006, 18:54:38 UTC
break();

Reply

vaxjedi November 19 2006, 19:32:03 UTC
Hmm... well magick may not be like code inherently. But code is just codified algorithm, that is, process. If something can be broken down to a process, it can be coded somehow.

All the codes does is flow control, data storage and manipulation, and input/output. If you have those things, you have code. The rest are just primitives.

Now I am making the assumption here that 'magic' as a concept should be able to the three concepts above. That may be an erroneous assumption, of course.

If you had a computer that could manipulate magickal energy, then you would just code it to do things. However, as long as there is something that can do the above and also engage in magickal activity, that's all you need.

Reply

phoenixprime November 19 2006, 22:21:42 UTC
I don't necessarily think that you are wrong is using the conceptualization of magic that you're using. However, I think the idea that you will ever be able to control for all the various variables involved is questionable ( ... )

Reply


prezzey November 19 2006, 19:09:16 UTC
Have the process do some observable physical change when it reaches some stage. Then observe the physical change. RNG output or something, set your mp3 player to random and ask for a specific song, etc. you can be inventive. (Something relatively easily swayed, preferably, because you don't want this change to be the major focus of your working. But not that easily swayed, and especially not one you can tinker with, you have to be honest to yourself.) Just be sure to specify time limits so that you don't end up cheating yourself... "I'll just wait till it happens" etc. And try to distract yourself from it happening (but only so much that you still notice it, of course - it should be sufficiently unusual).

Also, write up everything you do. Fiddle with variables systematically.

Reply

vaxjedi November 19 2006, 19:34:46 UTC
hmmm... I wonder if a random number generator would be the sort of thing. In and of itself, it is deterministic. But if it had an input that could be modified by magickal means (even just the random keys on the keyboard method they use for cryptography key generation), then that might be able to give something that could be used as an indicator.

Reply

prezzey November 19 2006, 19:49:45 UTC
I wasn't necessarily thinking of the pseudorandom stuff, there are pure random generators out there based on physical processes.

Reply

tlttlotd November 20 2006, 05:09:45 UTC
Building a hardware-based RNG might be an interesting exercise:

Avalanche noise RNG.

Thorium RNG.

Lava lamp RNG.

Video entropy daemon.

Audio entropy daemon.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

wibbble November 20 2006, 00:01:02 UTC
My experiences disagree with your beliefs. :op

Also, I suspect that you're confused over what a computer really is: it's nothing more than a complex tool. Almost everyone who works magic uses tools of some form, from fire/candles to ritual objects (athame, pentacle, et al) to tarot and other divination tools. Why should it be impossible to perform acts of magic using complex tools as well as simple ones?

(The obvious answer is that most Pagans try to hark back to a fictional pre-technology utopia and are generally a bunch of luddites - although I wouldn't expect to see that kind of mind-set in this community, of all places.)

Reply


chaoticpi_93 November 19 2006, 22:40:08 UTC
My answer is guided synchronicity. It's rather weird when that starts happening, the things that happen around me that are simply around the magick I was using. That's usually an indicator to me that things are going okay. If they guide into a completely different realm I quickly bring the stream back to where it was intended to, if that makes absolutely any sense at all.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up