I think I might have confused myself and I'm not really sure why I'm writing this. I've forgotten my original reason.
Oh well!
Not necessarily, it depends on how you define magic and technology really. If you define magic as something that is incomprehensible and defies all known natural laws then it's possible to conclude that it follows its own natural laws that we are simply unaware of yet. So with research it'd be possible to find these laws and therefore 'define' magic.
Sure, but what if the only thing you find is that it does NOT follow any definable laws?
Those "laws" make the unwarranted assumption that there is a clearly definable background that does not break laws of physics and the like.
This could be defined as technology.
Technology is basically something that isn´t biology. Something you can create to reliably provide a specific and predictable result.
It's the same basic principal just using 'mana' or whatever other magical element you want instead of oil.
Oil is manipulated using chemistry or technology. Try extracting the energy out of oil by looking at it and you will probably be rather disappointed. Try to make plastics from it without using a catalyst or technology and well, disappointed again.
Manipulating mana with technology or chemistry might very well work, but those are not
required.
Those laws aren't really laws to be honest, they're more like ideas I think.
Exactly, not even their creators or biggest proponents claim them to be undisputable laws. Which is why i think it´s so darn annoying when some people(not you) throw them around as absolute laws that trumps anything. I´ve noticed it especially on the Spacebattles forum, where magic and tech are discussed by many as if magic cant NOT be technologically feesible, or that technology WILL by default be able to "be" magic as soon as it ´s advanced enough.
Anyways magic and technology are just words they don't change the thing itself all they change is how you perceive it. That's why some people like to call magic technology sometimes. It's like comparing fantasy to sci-fi. Both have unexplainable things but you'd never confuse the two because of the way they approach it.
Tech is what can effectively do by working one or several crafts.
Magic is what does things beyond what should be possible with the tools or resources at hand.
Damn this is hard to explain
No kidding...
I think what I'm trying to say is that some people like to view it as 'technology'(rational, logical and such) while others prefer it as 'magic' (irrational, unexplainable).
But that is a flawed way of thinking. Because magic could very well be rational and logical and still be impossible to replicate equally through technology.
For example, if someone makes a pen hover above ground by thinking it, and they produce this effect in a totally predictable way, then by that thinking it should be technology. And i just simply cannot apply that definition to such an event.
Technology is if you´re using a robotic hand to lift it by remote control. Or use a stick with a grabbing claw.
Or take the magic system used in the Spellsong Cycle books, that magic is 100% predictable, but calling it technology would be utterly laughable.
Etc etc...
If people doesn´t want magic to be real, than they probably shouldn´t write stories about magic.
(On a side note I'm pretty sure magic is the only real explainable reason for some of the stuff in Sailor Moon, I mean have you seen their costumes. It's also way more fun than saying it's technology)
Yeah, but there it´s ALSO magitech. And in Nanoha magitech is even the dominant technology, but the base magic is still very much NOT technology, but it can be exploited with tech.
Ok, did i manage to be coherent and make sense?