|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
luvisi Special user 601 Posts 
|
I'm not familiar with Baxter's writings, but I do find David Britland's argument that the published version is correct to be persuasive.
http://cardopolis.blogspot.com/2008/06/f......-is.html It may also be helpful to keep in mind that almost all magic tricks are disappointing when you find out how they are done. In my observation, experienced magicians are rarely fooled by principles or techniques with which they are not familiar. It is far more common for magicians to be fooled by principles or techniques that they do not expect or have been successfully deceived into dismissing. For example, the 2 times I have been fooled the worst in my life involved a one-way force deck and a pop-eyed-popper deck. I predict that if you ever find out or figure out how this is done, your reaction will be something along the lines of "wait, THAT was all he did?" When we magicians are fooled, we want to believe that we have just seen an incredible new method. We do not want to believe that we missed something simple that we already knew because of a little presentational twist that the performer put onto it. I don't know if it will be helpful in this case, but in general when reading written descriptions of effects, especially advertisements, it is important to remember that the author is trying to deceive you. Words and phrases may not mean what you initially assume them to mean. Often you are faced not so much with a magic trick as with a word trick. Also, sometimes the author is attempting to describe what they believe the audience will perceive rather than what actually happens. For instance, I once had a conversation with someone who described a trick as beginning with a fair shuffle. When I pointed out that the shuffle was not actually fair, they replied that it appears fair to the audience because of some convincing touches that are built into the trick. As another example, I once had a similar conversation with someone who described a trick as beginning with the audience member thinking of a card. In reality, the audience member was allowed to think of one of the cards that were shown to them. When I pointed out this discrepancy in the description, they replied that the effect upon the audience is that the spectator merely thought of a card, so it was an accurate description. It is also important to remember that different performances can use different techniques, even if the effects seem similar. Annemann would sometimes perform the same effect a few times in a row, using different methods, but implying that it was the same trick being repeated. A spectator trying to come up with one method that could be used for all 3 performances was stuck before they even began. Similarly, I think it was Walter Gibson who wrote about Houdini giving the impression that he had one great secret for all of his escapes, when in reality he had many different secrets that he used in different situations. Spectators attempting to come up with the one single solution for all of his escapes were also stuck before they even began. So when you read about 2 different performances of the "same" trick, it may be helpful not to assume that the methods were identical in every respect. Perhaps some core secret is the same or similar, but some supporting techniques are different. Oh, and remember all those times you've heard a spectator describe a trick and get all sorts of details wrong? When we magicians have been fooled, our descriptions are not necessarily any more accurate. Regardless of whether you find an answer, or the answer, or just some clever ideas that you can use in your own work, enjoy your exploration. Often the journey is more interesting than the destination. Andru
Andru Luvisi
http://www.practicenotincluded.com/ |
|||||||||
Chris Bruce Loyal user Canada 213 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 17, 2020, Shane Cobalt wrote: Agree 100%. As I have stated before, I have seen him do this many times for many people, including myself more than once. Tom had a method for it. Completely hands off method and free choice of when to stop. Its ok to be flummoxed. Chris |
|||||||||
|
luvisi Special user 601 Posts
|
I'm going to make another open prediction.
I predict that if you ever find out or figure out how this is done, you will reread these threads and you will occasionally think to yourself something along the lines of "Hey, that's not true!" And on some of those occasions, you will also think something along the lines of "Oh wait. I guess it's technically true. Kind of. Sort of." Andru
Andru Luvisi
http://www.practicenotincluded.com/ |
|||||||||
|
MC Mirak Regular user 190 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 24, 2020, luvisi wrote: Unfortunately, the attitude of "this is impossible" is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. Roger Bannister exposed this with his 4 minute mile (an "absolute impossibility" according to many at the time). He is just placing arbitrary psychological limits on himself. Here's a trick I do all the time, which is familiar to many if not most magicians, which could certainly be claimed to be impossible if you don't know exactly what is going on: - a spectator counts cards in their hand themselves, they count, for example, 10 - the magician "magically" sends some cards across to them - the spectator counts cards cleanly onto the table, there are now 13 - the spectator picks the cards up off the table themselves - the magician walks across the room and magically sends 3 more cards over - the spectator counts the cards themselves and there are now 16 Rules: the spectator counts the cards, the magician can even show some cards prior to sending them over, the cards the magician shows can be signed, borrowed cards can be used, no stack, no threads, no magnets, no stooges, the magician can even send cash into the spectator's pocket in variations of this effect Pontificating on the details above would lead someone uninformed well away from what is actually going on, yet everything is true. In other words, just because you can't figure something out means exactly zero except, in this case, that one is so arrogant to actually believe that because he can't figure something out, it's impossible. It's actually sad to watch. But it's quite revealing as well. |
|||||||||
|
luvisi Special user 601 Posts
|
You said "no threads."
What if the trick actually used wires? I know it doesn't, but what if it did? That would be a perfect example of the deceptiveness that so often permeates magic advertisements. Upon learning the secret, a student might feel disappointed, because the student might have mistakenly assumed that "no threads" also means "no wires" without any conscious thought. This student, upon reviewing the advertisement, might think "but you said no threads! Well, I guess a wire technically isn't a thread." And the student would be more cautious the next time they were reading a magic advertisement, because they would have lost some of their innocence. Yes, that is sad, but in a world with so much deceptive advertising (Does anyone else remember sea monkeys and ant farms that were not nearly as exciting as they sounded?), it may be inevitable. Andru
Andru Luvisi
http://www.practicenotincluded.com/ |
|||||||||
|
ipe Special user 515 Posts
|
Hi MBAgamer,
first, I want to say I'm interested in this topic so please keep going. Of course this discussion is very abstract, but I think there is room here for this kind of discussions too. In fact, I believe this general approach can be quite effective to find new methods in magic. I have some disparate thoughts about this topic regarding what you and others wrote: 1. I think talking about physical possibility and physical impossibility is not appropriate here. It is better to talk simply about general possibility and impossibility, knowing the epistemic background is the ordinary plausibility. In short, we want to exclude real magic. 2. You wrote: "I take this back now, as I was not quite clear about my thoughts at the time. Thinking about this further, it might be the case that the effect (steps 1 through 12) under the conditions (conditions 1 through 21) is (physically) possible if it is (physically) possible to make someone see or think that the sole face down card is the AD while also making them see or think that the AD is not among any of the 51 face up cards. In that case the participant can stop dealing the cards face up even at positions other than N-1 and the effect would work". This is the reason of my proposal in my first bullet. We want to exclude real magic, so your hypothetical sentence makes no sense. We should assume what I called previously as ordinary plausibility, otherwise "physical possibility" and "physical impossibility" lose their meanings because everything would be possible. If Baxter can fully control minds, if Baxter can magically transmute cards, if Baxter can magically see the future, if Baxter can magically control the light and how things appear... 3. Other than the ordinary possibility, it would be possible to talk about logical possibly. But this would be easy, too easy to be useful. It is obvious to see it is logically possible to follow all the conditions and steps of "A Dianoetic Rage" (ADR) and even more: Baxter can sleep while the spectator performs ADR for himself without knowing and understanding the method. 4. Someone can just think there is nothing extraordinary about the apparent impossibility of ADR because all magic effects should appear impossible. But I don't think this opinion captures the essence of MBAgamer's question. The problem here, it is not only the effect appears impossible to laymen, it is not only the effect appears impossible to the magic community, the interesting fact is the effect as well as the method appear impossible to the magic community. I mean, Baxter talked about methods too: no stooges, no switches, no special cards, absolutely free choice on where to stop, no multiple outs, the method always works, real shuffle, the performer doesn't know the order of any card, the performer never touches the deck so the effect can be performed via videocall, etc... Metaphorically, we are not talking to make an impossible levitation possible, this is too easy and trivial for magicians. We are talking to make levitation possible with a list of impossible conditions from a method and magician point of view. 5. For what it's worth, I think ADR is impossible or ADR is a "language trick" (it exploits some loopholes on how the things are stated, not respecting the spirit of the intended effect). 6. Some witnesses say all the Baxter steps and conditions are met. But witnesses can only confirm steps and some conditions. But they are not in the position to confirm all the conditions (no stooges, no switch...). 7. ADR is an extension of the famous 51FN. The first one is a classic magic/mentalism problem, and both are legends. They are meant to inspire and excite the community to find new ways of thinking. So, I see no ethical problem with this discussion.
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
|
luvisi Special user 601 Posts
|
Ipe, you too have paraphrased the conditions.
As with MBAgamer's paraphrasing, you may have accidentally eliminated the word trick, thereby accidentally eliminating the solution. Andru
Andru Luvisi
http://www.practicenotincluded.com/ |
|||||||||
|
MC Mirak Regular user 190 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 24, 2020, luvisi wrote: Andru, Excellent point. And one I do not disagree with in concept but only in execution: a wire, by definition, is a thread (see below). Harapan Ong talks a little bit about this idea of advertising/expectedness in magic METHODS (for example, see Principia, p. 17, in the section where he talks about "NO STRINGS, NO MAGNETS"). However, back to the topic, the discussion around Stewart James and how the "rules" are interpreted are key here. In the effect I described, I only put in threads and magnets for my personal entertainment, they have nothing to do with the effect. However, because I like being a devil's advocate, I will say that saying no thread then there being a wire would actually be false advertising because there wire is, by definition a thread, and you can even search for thread of wire: https://lmgtfy.app/?q=thread+of+wire And, if you do that search, and look up the "thread vs wire" entry, you get this: "wire means metal formed into a thin, even thread" :thanx: |
|||||||||
|
MBAgamer Regular user 108 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 24, 2020, MC Mirak wrote: You could not be further from the truth. I am not saying A Dianoetic Rage is impossible because I am unable to figure it out. There are many effects out there such that were I to read descriptions of them with all conditions stated I would not be able to figure them out. Does that I mean I would conclude they are impossible? Of course not. In this case, the only reason I am saying A Dianoetic Rage is impossible, is because given the conditions provided (and, no, I am not misinterpreting them -- I, unlike you, have spoke to Mr. Baxter personally in the past about them on several occasions) the effect simply cannot be done as described UNLESS (as I said before) it is possible -- under the conditions in question -- to control someone's vision. Before I get back to this, let me give you an example (somewhat similar to the example you gave). Consider the following hypothetical effect with all the conditions stated: Suppose you are sitting at home in your bedroom with a regular deck of 52 cards. No one has secretly tampered with your room before the effect (so none of the objects in the room have been secretly tampered with in any shape or form). Hence it follows that no one has secretly tampered with the deck in your room before the effect. It is, indeed, your regular bedroom with your regular deck of 52 cards in it. Suppose now I get on a video call with you. And on the video call I ask you to count off 10 cards from the top of your deck into a single face down pile. You do so. You, actually, count down 10 cards (and only 10 cards) into a single face down pile. The rest of the *42* cards are set aside away from the pile of 10 face down cards. Call the pile of 10 face down cards pile A, and call the pile of 42 face down cards pile B. You do not touch these two piles again until I tell you to do so. With these two piles sitting in front of you, at this moment, I snap my fingers and then ask you to count through each pile (pile A first, then pile B). You count through pile A and you discover that there are now 13 cards in it. You count through pile B as well and you discover that there are now 39 cards in it. 3 cards have, somehow, jumped across from pile B to pile A! The effect is 100% impromptu and can be performed anywhere (even through a video call, as in the scenario described above) with absolutely no set up of any kind, with no gimmicks/gaffs of any kind, with no stooges/assistants of any kind, with absolutely *nothing* other than the performer, the participant, and a regular deck of 52 cards. The procedure is exactly as described above: the participant takes the 52 cards and splits them up into two piles by dealing off 10 cards into a face down pile on the table and then putting aside the remaining 42 cards. It is not merely that it appears to the participant that they do this. They, *as a matter of fact*, do this. So the deck, *as a matter of fact*, is divided up into two face down piles, one consisting of 10 cards and the other consisting of 42 cards. And with these two piles formed, without any external intervention of any sort, pile A is counted by the participant a moment later and is discovered to, *as a matter of fact*, have 13 cards, whereas pile B is counted and is discovered to, *as a matter of fact*, have 39 cards. So 3 cards have, *as a matter of fact*, jumped across from pile B to pile A under the extreme test conditions in question. If I claim this effect with all its conditions is impossible (which it is), is it because I am unable to figure it out? Of course not. It is because it, *as a matter of fact*, cannot be performed when we consider the effect with all the conditions. That is, when we examine all the facts given to us, it is easy enough to see that the effect simply cannot be performed under the conditions in question. Either something has been left out of the description of the effect or else one of the conditions stated is false. But that exact description of events cannot actually occur under the conditions in question because of the simple fact that it is not possible for 3 cards -- or for that matter even 1 card -- to, *as a matter of fact*, jump across from pile B to pile A under the extreme test conditions in question. If you think perhaps that exact description of events can actually occur under the conditions in question, and that I am arrogant to say it is impossible just because I am unable to figure out how it is possible, then I am afraid that you do not comprehend my point. And that would be the end of that. By the same token, when it comes to A Dianoetic Rage, when we look at the description of the effect with all its conditions, it is easy enough to see how that description of events cannot actually occur with all the conditions in question (unless it is possible, under the conditions of the effect, to make someone see things that are not there and to not see things that are there). Go back and carefully read the description of A Dianoetic Rage and carefully read all of the conditions. If A Dianoetic Rage with all its conditions is real then, on average, in 51 out of 52 performances the face down card at the conclusion of the effect is not the predicted card and so the predicted card is among the 51 face up cards. In that case, if the effect is to succeed anyways (which it must given condition 14), then when the participant turns over the face down card that is not the predicted card they must see it to be the predicted card. So they must see something that is not there (and, for that matter, not see something that is there -- as the actual card that is there will not be seen by them). And they must not see the predicted card to be among the 51 face up cards even though it is there. So the participants vision has to be controlled in some way for the effect to succeed in the cases where the face down card at the conclusion of the effect is not the predicted card (and so the predicted card is among the 51 face up cards). If we suppose that the participants vision cannot be controlled (which it obviously cannot, at least under the extreme test conditions of the effect), and so the participant sees things as they actually are, then A Dianoetic Rage *fails* in the cases where the face down card is not the predicted card (and so the predicted card is among the 51 face up cards). Because, if the participant sees things as they actually are, then the participant would in these cases see that the face down card is not the predicted card. Hence in these cases the effect would *fail*, as the conclusion of the effect is supposed to be: the participant sees that the face down card is the predicted card. But by condition 14 the effect is supposed to *work* even in these cases. So, then, in these cases the effect would *work*. So, if the participant sees things as they actually are, the effect both *works* and *fails* in these cases. That is a contradiction. Hence, if the participant sees things as they actually are, A Dianoetic Rage is simply impossible due to contradiction. So my conclusion that A Dianoetic Rage as described with all conditions is impossible (assuming vision control does not occur, so the participant sees things as they actually are) is not grounded in my inability to figure out how it is done. Rather, it is grounded in the fact that if we assume the effect as described with all conditions is real (with no vision control, so the participant sees things as they actually are), then we get a contradiction: that, in the cases where the face down card is not the predicted card, the effect both works and fails at the same time. |
|||||||||
|
MC Mirak Regular user 190 Posts
|
Yup, everyone is just lying and you’re not just missing something. Right. Quote:
It's actually sad to watch. But it's quite revealing as well. |
|||||||||
|
MBAgamer Regular user 108 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 25, 2020, MC Mirak wrote: You simply do not understand my point. I gave you a very thorough example to illustrate my point. Some effects with certain conditions just cannot be performed due to being physically impossible, in which case the description has to be slightly changed or some condition(s) have to be removed in order to potentially make things physically possible (and hence performable). For example in the case of the hypothetical effect I described to you with its conditions clearly it isn't possible exactly as described with all conditions (hopefully you can at least see that much; if you cannot, then I really do not know what to say). Likewise, A Dianoetic Rage with all its conditions turns out to be physically impossible as well if we dig into the description of the effect with all conditions in mind. My claim is simple: for the reasons above, Mr. Baxter must be confused about his effect as described meeting all 21 conditions or else if it does meet all 21 conditions then something is not completely accurate about the way he describes the effect (perhaps something is missing, etc.). So perhaps he can perform some such effect that he calls "A Dianoetic Rage" (and it is *that* effect that all witnesses that have replied to this thread have seen) but it would be one that does not play out exactly as described in my replies above with all 21 conditions. The way the effect is described with all 21 conditions, it is physically impossible unless it is physically possible to perform mind-control/vision-control under extreme test conditions. And since -- as far as we know -- it is not physically possible to perform mind-control/vision-control of the sort in question under extreme test conditions, then it should be assumed that A Dianoetic Rage as described with all 21 conditions is physically impossible. You just do not understand the point I am making (which is obvious given the sort of replies you are making to this thread). I have explained multiple times why A Dianoetic Rage *as described with all 21 conditions* is physically impossible unless it is possible to, under extreme test conditions, make someone see something that is not there (and not see something that is there). You have not provided any counter-argument to my argument for why A Dianoetic Rage *as described with all 21 conditions* is physically impossible. You have said things here and there but I have yet to see a direct counter-argument to my argument for why A Dianoetic Rage *as described with all 21 conditions* is physically impossible. If you wish to provide such a counter-argument, I am happy to engage with it. Otherwise, I see no point in further talking with you on this topic. EDIT: Also, I never claimed that anyone is lying. Hell, I even said that Mr. Baxter probably is not lying (and that the witnesses who have seen him perform this effect probably are not lying either). So I have said the exact *opposite* of what you are accusing me of. I am just saying that, whatever effect Mr. Baxter performed for these witnesses, it is not A Dianoetic Rage *as described with all 21 conditions*. Call A Dianoetic Rage *as described with all 21 conditions* 'ADR-HYPOTHETICAL'. What I am saying is this: whatever effect Mr. Baxter performed for these witnesses, it was not ADR-HYPOTHETICAL, since ADR-HYPOTHETICAL is physically impossible. So, then, what he performed for them either (a) matches the description of ADR-HYPOTHETICAL but does not meet all 21 conditions in question or (b) does not match the description of ADR-HYPOTHETICAL but meets all 21 conditions in question or (c) neither matches the description of ADR-HYPOTHETICAL nor meets all 21 conditions in question. So it is either (a), (b), or (c) that happened. The fourth option, (d), is what I am saying is out of the question due to being physically impossible: (d) matches the description of ADR-HYPOTHETICAL and meets all 21 conditions. That is my point. No one is calling Mr. Baxter and all the witnesses a liar here (in fact, as I mentioned above, I said quite the opposite, namely that, he and all the witnesses are probably NOT lying ). So that is that. |
|||||||||
|
ipe Special user 515 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 25, 2020, luvisi wrote: Hi Andru, The 51FN conditions are precisely known but it is true the exact words used by Baxter for his additional conditions are (for now) unknown. However, it is enough having the 51FN conditions plus the additional Baxter's conditions that no stooges are used. Moreover, the videocall condition is quite clear too and it make the effects even more impossible. Of course there is still space for language trick. There will always be space for language tricks in every human communication. But this is my fifth bullet: "I think ADR is impossible or ADR is a 'language trick' (it exploits some loopholes on how the things are stated, not respecting the spirit of the intended effect)". You talked about the wires/threads language trick. Omitting MC Mirak's post, of course I agree with the essence of your remark. But here we are interested in magic/mentalism effect, not language trick. For example, I holds out my closed fist and say: "I am holding two legit US coins in my hand. The sum of these coins comes to exactly 55 cents. One of the coins is not a nickel. How is it possible?". This is not magic, this is a language trick.
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
|
ipe Special user 515 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 25, 2020, MBAgamer wrote: Hi MBAgamer, I don't know if you have already read my yesterday post. In general I agree with you. But I found this specification not only superfluous but somewhat counterproductive for the discussion.
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
|
MBAgamer Regular user 108 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 26, 2020, ipe wrote: Hey, I agree with you that what I said was probably superfluous. After all, as far as we know, things like making people see things that are not there (or not see things that are there) under impromptu conditions is not possible. Thus the general assumption should be that full vision control, mind control, etc. under impromptu conditions is something that cannot be done. So we should proceed with that assumption. This is why in all my posts I made sure to say that while ADR with all its conditions would only be possible if vision control of this sort is possible, since vision control of this sort is *not* possible, ADR is, therefore, not possible. But, yes, it may have been superfluous and may have distracted people from the real point. The point, putting aside all that vision control talk, is this: When we look at ADR with all its 21 conditions, apparently the following is possible: Consider a regular closed room with nothing but a regular table in it, where that regular table has nothing but a regular blank piece of paper, a regular pencil (or pen), and a regular deck of 52 playing cards on it (it could be an incomplete deck, as it could be any borrowed deck, but let it be supposed here that it is a full deck of 52 cards). Suppose that anyone that steps foot into this room has no contact with the outside world for the time that they remain in the room. Also suppose that anyone that steps foot into this room does so with nothing on them except for their regular clothes. Suppose, now, that three persons are (through some means) randomly selected and sent into the room. Suppose also that the performer (of the effect) is sent into the room; the performer enters the room under complete impromptu conditions. So now four persons are in this room. All come empty handed with no contact with the outside world, in which case even after they all enter the room there is, except for them and their regular clothes, nothing in the room that was not in there before. Excluding the performer, one of the remaining three persons is (through some means) randomly selected to be the participant for the effect -- who, by the way, is not an instant stooge. As for the remaining two persons, they are to merely stand by and observe the effect happen. So they are not, in any shape or form, to help the performer; hence, they are not instant stooges either. The randomly selected participant is the only person that is to come into physical contact with any of the cards on the table *for the entirety of the time the four persons in question are in the room.* The performer is the only person that is to come into physical contact with the blank piece of paper and the pencil/pen on the table *for the entirety of the time the four persons in question are in the room.* At this point, the participant takes the deck and gives it a real, fair shuffle. After the shuffle, the participant spreads out the deck face up onto the table so that the performer can look at the cards in order to make his prediction. The performer looks at the cards, and, then, writes down the name of a card on the piece of paper. With this done, the participant closes the face up spread, turns the deck face down and gives it a quick shuffle or a few cuts so that no one can know the exact location/position of any card in the deck (and genuinely, *as a matter of fact*, no one knows the location/position of any card in the deck after this shuffle/cuts), and then holds the deck square, in face down position, in his hands. The performer now openly shows all three persons present in the room his prediction. Let it be supposed that the prediction is the 3 of clubs (henceforth 3C). At this point the participant, still holding the deck square in face down position in his hands, starts to (after being given instructions) take the cards from the top of the deck and begins to deal them face up in a single pile on the table. The cards are to be dealt from top to bottom *in the very order that they are in at this point*, all face up with the exception of one. While dealing the cards face up in order, the participant decides to stop dealing the cards face up at some point (which is genuinely a free choice; the participant could have, *as a matter of fact*, stopped anywhere whatsoever) and then deals the very next card in the order face down off to the side on its own, followed by dealing the remainder of the cards in his hands face up in order onto the same face up pile. Neither the participant nor the other two persons observing see the 3C to be among the (now) 51 face up cards. Finally, the participant turns over the sole face down card (which has not been switched in any shape or form, so it is, *as a matter of fact*, the very card that the participant dealt face down) and it is seen by the participant and the other two persons to be the 3C. This is, then, repeated four more times, in order to demonstrate that it was not a fluke. It genuinely, *as a matter of fact*, was not a fluke. It really works 100% of the time. This is apparently how ADR can be performed, with all its 21 conditions, under these extreme test conditions. It is this which is simply impossible. The reason is simple: at the time the participant begins the deal, the predicted card lies in the deck at some position, N, from 1 through 52. So the ONLY way the participant can deal the predicted card face down is if they stop dealing the cards face up at N-1. Remember they genuinely deal the cards in the very order that they are in, so they do not deal them out of order. In that case they cannot have a free choice of where to stop dealing. If they had a free choice of where to stop dealing, then they could stop dealing the cards face up at N-6 and the effect would still work. But it will not work in that case clearly because in that case the card they will leave face down will be the one at position N-5, which is not the predicted card as the predicted card is at position N. So we get a literal contradiction. The contradiction is as follows. The participant can stop dealing the cards face up at N-6 and so deal the card at N-5 face down and the effect will work. So let us suppose they do that. Then: (a) the card at N-5 that is dealt face down is the predicted card when turned over at the conclusion of the effect (because, as just mentioned above, the effect will work even in this case, as it does not matter where the participant stops the deal) but (b) the card at N-5 that is dealt face down is not the predicted card when turned over at the conclusion of the effect (because the predicted card was not at position N-5; it was at position N). So the card that is dealt face down, the one at N-5, both is and is not the predicted card at the same time. This is a contradiction. Therefore, ADR with all its conditions is impossible. There is just no way around it. I have proved that ADR with all its conditions results in a contradiction. For this reason, some of the people calling me arrogant or the like simply do not understand my point. I am not claiming that ADR with all its conditions is impossible because I have thought about it for so long and I cannot figure out how it is done. Rather, I am claiming it is impossible because it results in a contradiction (as I demonstrated above). (Of course there is no contradiction if vision control of the sort mentioned previously is possible under these conditions, but in everything in this post that I said above it is being assumed that it is not possible so the participant sees things as they actually are. If vision control of the sort mentioned were possible, then this is why there would be no contradiction: in that case the card that is dealt face down, the one at N-5, will not be the predicted card. And when it is turned over at the conclusion of the effect it will be seen to be the predicted card. It will not actually be the predicted card though as that is how the contradiction (the card both not being the predicted card and being the predicted card at the same time) kicks in. It will only be *seen* to be the predicted card (via the vision control) despite not being so. Hence there is no contradiction. But since vision control of this sort is not possible, then we fall right back to the contradiction. Hence ADR with all its conditions is impossible.) |
|||||||||
|
Claudio Inner circle Europe 1946 Posts
|
I have not read the whole repetitive thread, so apology in advance if I say again some other’s comments.
What intrigued me is that it’s been alleged that T. Baxter could perform the effect remotely over a Skype or Zoom session. If that’s the case, and after reading all the lengthy conditions, it means that the presence or the existence even of the magician is not required as it’s akin to anyone picking up a complete pack of cards, shuffling it, thinking of a card and going through the usual dealing and turning over procedure. Therefore, the effect is indeed possible, but improbable as it would succeed in average 1/52 over a large number of performances. Not worth losing any sleep over it – unless something’s been left out (intentionally or not) by those who eye-witnessed the effect. If I were inclined to perform this type of effects, I'd rather spend my time creating my own version than working hard on proving to others that T. Baxter's legendary handling is not the miracle it's been reported to be. Not a dig to anyone (really), just that some miracle-class effects are best left untouched so that our collective imagination has something to dream about and emulate 
|
|||||||||
|
Chris Bruce Loyal user Canada 213 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 27, 2020, Claudio wrote: Although it may be possible to perform over Zoom, it would be much more difficult. I don't think that it has ever been done this way. From my understanding, it would be impossible to do it without the performer. |
|||||||||
|
MC Mirak Regular user 190 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 24, 2020, MC Mirak wrote: I'm quite disappointed that the point made above seems to either not matter or go over the heads of people here. From a perspective ignorant of the secret, the above will seem to many to be impossible. They will pontificate about how it's impossible for the spectator to count 10 cards themselves, then there are 13, then they count the cards themselves, then there are 16. Somebody ignorant of the process may say something like: "Unless the spectator loses the ability to count accurately, this is probably impossible". And yet many (if not most) card magicians know this effect and know it is both possible, meets all criteria above, it isn't a "language" trick, and has nothing to do with the counting ability of the spectator (just like vision has nothing to do with TB's effect). This is what people refuse to accept, that they are just missing something. |
|||||||||
|
luvisi Special user 601 Posts
|
MC Mirak,
Thank you for the clarification on wires/thread. In case I am one of the people you are talking about, I will say that I fully acknowledge I may be missing something. Rather than leading people directly towards my own ideas for how I would duplicate the conditions, or interpret them creatively, or split hairs (threads? wires?) about their meaning, I have been attempting to offer advice that is generally useful whenever reading a magic advertisement. Teach a man how to fish, and all that. However, I also acknowledge that I do not seem to be helping. Andru
Andru Luvisi
http://www.practicenotincluded.com/ |
|||||||||
|
MBAgamer Regular user 108 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 27, 2020, MC Mirak wrote: Sorry but you are the one who is not understanding the point here. I completely understand the point you are making -- but, as it turns out, it has nothing to do with the discussion here. The example argument you brought up (the description with all the conditions) may be one that sounds impossible at first glance but clearly it is not, in fact, impossible. When I look at the description with all the given conditions, I see no inherent contradiction. In fact, more to the point, I can think of some possible ways to perform the effect as described with all the conditions. So obviously it is not impossible. ADR with all its conditions, on the other hand, has an inherent contradiction which makes it impossible. I have, in various ways, tried to describe that contradiction. If you do not see it, then the only thing missing here is your ability to understand the contradiction in question. The bottom line is this: you cannot compare the hypothetical effect you are describing with ADR due to the fact that the hypothetical effect (with its conditions) that you are describing contains no contradiction whereas ADR (with its conditions) contains a contradiction. *That* right there is the difference. I am not going to bother explaining the same thing again and again to you, but I will give it one last shot: Anyone can write up a description of an effect with some set of conditions. Sometimes it would be possible to perform the described effect whilst meeting all its conditions. Other times it will not be possible. Not everything is possible. For example consider the following effect with all the listed conditions: The performer is standing in NYC, NY, USA. The performer snaps his fingers and teleports to Copenhagen, Denmark in less than 1 second. The effect is 100% impromptu -- nothing at all is needed to perform the effect other than the performer. It is not a mere illusion. The performer, *as a matter of fact*, stands in NYC, NY, USA one moment and then less than one second later (upon snapping his fingers), *as a matter of fact*, stands in Copenhagan, Denmark. This is an obvious case of an effect that is simply impossible given the conditions. The effect cannot be performed exactly as described with all the conditions as that is something that is not physically possible. Clearly I would *not* be arrogant to say that this described effect with all its conditions is impossible. Likewise when we look at ADR as it is presented to us with its description and all its conditions, it turns out that the effect is impossible as well. According to ADR, I can take my regular deck of cards and fan it out to the performer (who is 1000s of miles away) on a Zoom or Skype session. The performer will make a prediction. I will then genuinely shuffle the deck and then deal through it (genuinely from top to bottom) with all the cards face up with the exception of one card face down. So I would deal all the cards face up in order, stop somewhere freely (genuinely I could stop anywhere), and then deal the very next card face down. And that very card at the conclusion of the deal would be seen by me to be the predicted card (and let us assume no vision control either, in which case that very card at the conclusion of the deal would not only be seen by me to be the predicted card but it will, in fact, be the predicted card). All of this would be done under 100% impromptu conditions with the performer 1000s of miles away -- so no set up, no gaffs/gimmicks/special tools, no stooges/assistants, *nothing at all* besides the performer, the participant, and a regular deck of cards (and, of course, a distance of some 1000 miles between the performer and the participant with the regular deck of cards). And the effect works 100% of the time -- it cannot fail if these steps are followed. Not just that, the effect also meets all 21 conditions in question (some of which are clearly met due to the way I described the effect here but even the ones that are not obvious, those are met as well). This just cannot happen. Due to the way the effect is described with all its conditions, if it was to be carried out in performance exactly like that, then in many cases the face down card at the conclusion of the effect will not be the predicted card. Due to the way the effect would play out with all its conditions, the card that ends up face down would be a completely random card. It could be any one of the 52 cards. So there are 51 possible scenarios where the face down card is not the predicted card. But one of the conditions of the effect is that the effect works 100% of the time if the instructions are carried out. So no matter what card is dealt face down -- that is, no matter what the possible scenario -- the effect works. If it works 100% of the time regardless of where the participant stops the deal and so regardless of what card the participant deals face down, then that means the face down card is always the predicted card; even in the cases when it is not the predicted card it is the predicted card. But that is a contradiction. Hence ADR as described with all its 21 conditions is impossible. That is the last I have on this topic to say to you. If you understand the point now, I am happy to hear that. If, however, you still do not understand the point, then I would urge that you go back and re-read everything that I have said. It is *you* who is not understanding; *I*, on the other hand, perfectly understand your point (which, as it turns out, is just not relevant to what I am saying). |
|||||||||
|
bluejay17! Regular user DC 120 Posts
|
I think people fail to realize how elastic the conditions are. Making the trick work is a simple matter of problem solving. In order to to make the effect work, there are two things that need to happen.
1. The magician needs to know where to card is. 2. The magician needs to make the spectator stop at the known position. All the rules about shuffles, counts, and procedures are just a smokescreen, because all we need to do is fix those two problems while taking into account the rules that relate to them. How do we solve two problems? Well with the first, we aren't allowed to know the card's location in the deck. However this has nothing to say about the card's location in relation to other cards. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about so I'll go to the next problem. The spectator CAN stop anywhere. CAN being the operative word. Will they stop anywhere? Of course not. They'll get bored about 15 cards in, or not know they're supposed to stop and deal all 52. However, if we know where the card will be one of two cards away, then all it takes is a single "ok" 14 cards in. The spectator is relieved that they didn't have to turn over 32 more cards, they deal the card face down, run through the others quickly, you build a teaspoon of suspense, and Stewart James ceases to roll in his grave. This is probably not the way Mr. Baxter, as he is affectionately know by this thread, does the trick, but I have completed all the criteria, so I certainly deserve a prize. PS. I hope the sarcasm isn't too outputting, this is the actual method I use, and I think all of you are great people. Also key cards can be used for criminal purposes. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Why "A Dianoetic Rage" is impossible (part 2, updated) (11 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Nov 21, 2020 08:28 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.24 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|