I have developing technology in my stories, but still early. Magic is rare in most places and each wizard has limited abilities, so technology is highly valued as well. Telescopes had just been invented. One old wizard uses a magnifying glass to help him read smaller print (on magic amulets). The two work together seamlessly at this tech and magic level. This allows the story to concentrate on the human interactions with tech and magic as just tools they use to achieve their goals.
Then the classic definition of magic -- unknown causality -- breaks down. Is there another fundamental difference? Intent, perhaps, or one requires a rational being?
Each wizard in this world has their own unique blend of magic abilities. They can combine their abilities sometimes, to create something new. The competitions between individual magics creates an uncertain twist as to what will succeed when in conflict much like individual personalities in conflict. It is not a contest of who has the most powerful magic, but how and when it is applied.
But you are correct that there are major differences between technology and magic. However, most common people in this world do not understand technology much better than magic. So there is some similarity in attitudes. People without abilities can look on magic as either cheating, something dreadful to be destroyed, or to be admired. A little bit like some people do with technology in the real world.
But with a higher tech level and the education level of the populous, the two become radically different as far as perceptions go - even though they were always radically different.
In the sense of "unknown causality" they are indeed very similar
I once put that definition in a discussion, someone asked if that meant that if you don't know the chemical pathways, taking aspirin is still magic, and someone else observed that yes, you could definitely make an argument that aspirin is magic to this day if you don't know how it works.
Bacteria are fundamental to life on earth. They, in fact, compose the great mass of it. They are essential to breaking down dead organisms and to the digestion of many multicellular animals.
It's more likely there would be no vertebrates than no bacteria.
Evolution means only that because organisms vary among themselves and pass such traits on, those traits that will help survival increase.
So if one flower bursts into flame, this will help insofar as it purges competition and hinder as far as it burns up the flower and its seeds. So the fire will be constrained.
Another flower might develop anti-magic to protect itself. That will succeed if magic is dangerous and fail if it is beneficial and have lopside effects if it's uneven.
I have developing technology in my stories, but still early. Magic is rare in most places and each wizard has limited abilities, so technology is highly valued as well. Telescopes had just been invented. One old wizard uses a magnifying glass to help him read smaller print (on magic amulets). The two work together seamlessly at this tech and magic level. This allows the story to concentrate on the human interactions with tech and magic as just tools they use to achieve their goals.
Then the classic definition of magic -- unknown causality -- breaks down. Is there another fundamental difference? Intent, perhaps, or one requires a rational being?
Each wizard in this world has their own unique blend of magic abilities. They can combine their abilities sometimes, to create something new. The competitions between individual magics creates an uncertain twist as to what will succeed when in conflict much like individual personalities in conflict. It is not a contest of who has the most powerful magic, but how and when it is applied.
And technology works the same for everyone
Yep, assuming you have it.
But you are correct that there are major differences between technology and magic. However, most common people in this world do not understand technology much better than magic. So there is some similarity in attitudes. People without abilities can look on magic as either cheating, something dreadful to be destroyed, or to be admired. A little bit like some people do with technology in the real world.
But with a higher tech level and the education level of the populous, the two become radically different as far as perceptions go - even though they were always radically different.
In the sense of "unknown causality" they are indeed very similar
I once put that definition in a discussion, someone asked if that meant that if you don't know the chemical pathways, taking aspirin is still magic, and someone else observed that yes, you could definitely make an argument that aspirin is magic to this day if you don't know how it works.
"In other ways, magic might aggravate it by supplying what technology could also do. Why risk antibiotics when you could curse the bacteria to death?"
Would a world where magic is the modus operandi of all things even have bacteria?
Would the bacterial life have their own magic attack response, a magic of their own to survive against such curses?
If there were no bacteria, what would act in their place?
Bacteria are fundamental to life on earth. They, in fact, compose the great mass of it. They are essential to breaking down dead organisms and to the digestion of many multicellular animals.
It's more likely there would be no vertebrates than no bacteria.
Would there even be evolution in such an all-magical universe?
Would magic evolve as organisms evolve?
Evolution means only that because organisms vary among themselves and pass such traits on, those traits that will help survival increase.
So if one flower bursts into flame, this will help insofar as it purges competition and hinder as far as it burns up the flower and its seeds. So the fire will be constrained.
Another flower might develop anti-magic to protect itself. That will succeed if magic is dangerous and fail if it is beneficial and have lopside effects if it's uneven.