Talk:Clarke's three laws

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clarke's three laws article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 60 days

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Science / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science
	Contemporary philosophy

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by .

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Artificial intelligence#Malevolent and friendly AI|artificial intelligence]] The anchor (#Malevolent and friendly AI) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Langford reference

In the interests of accountability, I am going to credit "Clarke's Third Law for Science-Fiction Writers" to David Langford (rather than, as the anon. contributor has done, to Clarke himself), on the grounds that

I have found no other reference to Clarke having said it; and
I have found a reference to Langford having said it under circumstances that suggest he made it up.

If you find an earlier reference than mine, feel free to correct me. --Paul A 01:30, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Redundant

So, we have both

Raymond's Second Law: Any sufficiently advanced system of magic would be indistinguishable from a technology.

...and...

Terry Pratchett refers to the law in his Discworld books by having wizard Ponder Stibbons state that "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

Seems like it's stating the same thing twice, no? Perhaps these should be combined somehow, or at the very least, placed next to each other in the list. Rhomboid 00:33, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

"Seems like it's stating the same thing twice, no?" No. Raymond's formulation is more precise, and, to be blunt, shows signs of having had some thought put into it, whereas "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology" is a rather obvious joke that was around years before Pratchett used it. That said, I agree that they're too similar to really be listed separately. --Paul A 03:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apology

A retroactive apology for the admittedly vain addition of my corollary to the list, removed by Mdob. Sorry! -- Ben 10:43, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Slashdot pastische

Another parody has appeared as a sig on slashdot :

Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality

Should I add it ? (I can trace the origins... maybe...) (note : sorry, forgot to sign in...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.66.137 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2006

As a counter point of view

Rule 3 - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

One could also make the suggestion that .. Any technology which is distinguishable from magic, is therefore not sufficiently advanced 146.200.7.104 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

from whose point of view? from that of those who engineer the technology (and understand the science behind it), the tech is always distinguishable from magic. 2A01:CB0C:761:5B00:7908:56A4:D005:CA3F (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Is this not trivially wrong? If true at all, then only from the perspective of a civilisation that is sufficiently far behind on the science underpinning the technology in question. From the point of view of the civilisation that has the tech, it is just that - tech... which I guess might be casually interchangeable with magic for the ignorant members of that civilisation. But then we have idiots will take anything to be magic which is true but hardly worth enunciating. This oft-cited "law" only makes sense when restricted enough that it says nothing at all.

Moreover, whereas some tech might seem like magic to those belonging to a less advanced civilisation, not everything that is imagined as magic can be made to pass by a sufficiently advanced technology. Some kinds of magic are physically impossible.

The astute reader objects that Clarke's 3rd law does not imply that any supposed magic will someday come true as sufficiently advanced tech. Quite so; but I suspect that this false inference is what attracts people to this catchphrase, which really is just trite nonsense. 2A01:CB0C:761:5B00:7908:56A4:D005:CA3F (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]