MagiCalc 2

I have created a new version of the Magical Probability Calculator. Edited (2015-12-29) to say you can view the code here, but it was written for Processing 1 and no longer works in 2 or 3 as-is, nor does the online Java applet work now. However, I have recently made a JavaScript version sans Processing.

MagiCalc 2 Screenshot

Changes in v0.2:

  • Updated m calculation to reflect changes made in Octavo.
  • Fixed NaN errors for various combos of p=1, m=1.
  • Added toggle for amplification/attenuation.
  • Added dynamic text displaying calculations.
  • Added graph to plot p_m.
  • Added percentage views for glsbm.

Enhancement ideas:

  • Add a toggle and slider for countermagic. (I had intended to do that for this release, but the logic to select ATT when e.g. the countermagic (M_C or Mcontra) exceeds M, was blowing up controlP5, and I did not find an elegant solution before the time I wanted to publish the new version.)

6 Replies to “MagiCalc 2”

  1. Magic (? in Octavo) influences natural probability (P?), either increasing it (spell) or decreasing it (antispell). Magic is also the product of gnosis (G), link (L), subliminalization (S), and belief (B).

    I’ve learned that taking a person into deep somnambulist hypnosis effectively brings gnosis (G) to 1.

    I’ve also learned that reprogramming their mind or doing parts negotiation with their subconscious mind (using Ultra Depth, Ultra Height, Mesmeric Fascination, or Profound Somnambulism, for example) with posthypnotic suggestions can bring belief (B) to 1. It is entirely possible to maximize those two parameters quite easily in one 90 minute hypnosis session.

    Finding a genetic link (L) and achieving subliminalization (S) are a lot harder to quantify.

    In Hoodoo, links are formed using fluids (venal blood, menses, semen, or urine), discharge (feces, vomit, vaginal discharge), dead bio (hair, skin/scabs), bodyprint-tracked belongings (dishrags, underwear, socks and shoes, fingerprints or footprints), personal symbols (photos, signatures) or impersonal symbols (name papers, sigils), for example.

    Fluids, discharge, dead bio form a link of 1. Tracked belongings form a link of around 0.9. Personal symbols form a link of around 0.8 if they are well-used, less if they’re new or lightly used.

    Impersonal symbols form a link of around 0.66 if they link you to something distinct, and around 0.5 or less if the link is indistinct.

    There is a catch-22 in subliminalization: the Observer Effect is dependent on the total number of Observers, as well as the force they exert on the object being Observed, which can sometimes be considerable.

    As the only Observer, your subliminalization (S) would be 1. The problem is, you have no way of knowing if you are the only Observer in any situation; chances are, you are not. You also have no way of knowing how much your magick influences a situation until after you have set it in motion and observed the tug-of-war between your forceful exertion, and that of other forces you may not have been aware of. Because of this catch-22, imperfect information makes it impossible to truly quantify S, only to adjust to it over repeated trials.

    I asked a spirit about this issue one time and was told simply to ‘study vectors.’ I took that to mean that a subliminalization (S) value of 1 is rare if not improbable.

    My personal ideal for S is 0.8 under passive Observation by multiple forces, less if those forces are actively vying for top position.

    Based on these estimated numbers, i’ve found that the following are realistic ideals for Magickal Probability:

    Natural probability of 0.5 (which relegates your outcome to pure chance), altered by aligning your beliefs (B = 1.0) under trance (G = 1.0), using a perfect link (L = 1.0) in an ideal situation with other passive Observers, but no outside interference (S = 0.8). In this ideal scenario, skillful magick allows you to turn a 50/50 game of chance into a magickal probability (P?) of 0.8200000000000001, or 82%.

    That is IDEAL aka the best you can do.

    With that said, that is not always practical.

    Most of the time, i resort to a combination of personal or impersonal symbols on a distinct link, which puts my link (L) at around 0.73 (0.8 + 0.66/2). Also, i find subliminalization usually begins around 0.6, in that Observers tend to exert a moderately active or restless imprint on any situation. If my work becomes common knowledge (which unfortunately sometimes happens), my subliminalization goes down from there as more outside forces work against the broadcast i send. I try as much as i can to keep my magick private, but i find active change in the real world rarely goes unnoticed by others, even if you say nothing.

    This brings my results down considerably. A chance probability of 0.5 is brought up to a magickal probability (P?) of 0.595922, giving a 59.6% chance of manifestation on daily work, with the variables being availability (or lack thereof) of personal links, and excess of outside interference, which lowers subliminalization. For antispells, (P?) of 0.404078, or 40.4% is the result. I find these results to be very accurate to my own real-world tests and experiments: around 60% of my own broadcasts hit the mark, and around 40% of my own antispells also work. Because i only mention sure thing results where i know i made a difference that is apparent to anyone who finds out what i did, i would say between 10% and 15% of my magick manifests in the world. Ymmv, but those are the numbers i have achieved.

    Realize that i leave no room for doubt. There are many experiments i would consider failures that others in occultism would consider successes. Mathematicians and scinetists do not leave room for leeway, and neither do i. I only count results scientists would not be able to dispute.

    Many people turn to magick too late, asking for things that have next to no natural probability (P) of happening, which brings the magickal probability (P?) down.

    This calculator has therefore taught me to maximize belief (B) and subliminalization (S) whenever possible BEFORE doing ritual work. It has also taught me that some situations are beyond even magick due to the low probability of them ever happening, and in those situations it is better to not do the work than to do it and wonder why it (obviously) failed.

    These are my candid realizations about magickal manifestation probability.

    I am not a professional occultist, nor an overly experienced one. I do not charge for my services (yet), but have done daily operations since 2011 as a student of the game. I do my magick experiments using radionic machines.

    Your mileage may vary. You will sometimes hear magicians tell you they get 99% results and are 7th generation this-and-that, and more power to you. But i have not found that to be true based on the work i’ve done. These probabilities are my results based on my current technology, current understandings, and current real world tested conclusions.

  2. I really appreciate the work you are doing – inspiring and innovating at the edge between scientific & magical technology (in the real sense). Am inspired!

    I stumbled upon your work while sourcing for further ideas for a practical approach to magick that am developing too – Silent Magick.

    As a professional programmer, I was amazed to see you apply the arduino to ritual (something I’d not thought of before). Personally, I’ve used the arduino (I own both a Duemilanove and a Uno), which I’ve mostly only used in prototyping simple simulations for hardware systems our software occasionally has to interact with. But that line is the boring side of things, see what you are planning to do with the arduino and emotiv epoc 8-)


    Anyways, cutting the talk short, here’s the real business:

    Am working on a *nix system, and still wanted to tinker with and understand the theory behind this Magic Calc.

    1 > What exactly does this calc do? I’ve tried scraping around for yours (or Carroll’s) discussion of the algorithm, and I couldn’t find much.

    2 > In one article I managed to find, Caroll contrasts science and magic as “science represents the study of fairly high probability and reliability phenomena, magic looks at the anomalies and the exceptions”. In this case, I understand Caroll to imply that magick (or that magick outside of science), is the kind that deals with phenomena of less certainty (and possibly low “apparent” correlation). I might have misunderstood him, but is this algorithm related to these ideas of his? And in that case, does it attempt to establish the statistical likelihood of a magical explanation or a causation in planned or observed phenomena?

    Am excited!

    Please be kind enough and guide me on this matter, as am likely to be interested in adapting it to practical work and further exploration…

    3 – How is this calc currently meant (or being) used by you or others?



    1. Hello and thanks for your interest. The equations are explained in Carroll’s Liber Kaos, Apophenion, and Octavo (they changed a little from the first to the last two). The general idea is that magic (M, represented by the capital Greek letter Psi Ψ in Octavo) influences natural probability (P), and that magic is the product of gnosis (G), link (L), subliminalization (S), and belief (B). All values are normalized (0 to 1). The biggest problem with it is the difficulty of deciding measures for all of the inputs, but even if you cannot precisely measure something such as gnosis or belief, you can have a sense of more or less gnosis or belief. As far as I know, no one rigorously uses it for anything practical; I just wanted to interactively show the relationships between the inputs and outputs, to help people understand how they theoretically work.

      I do think this system approaches something that is experimental. If you are doing REG-manipulation experiments, e.g., you should be able to improve your results by increasing gnosis, link, sublim, or belief. Unless, of course, the theory is incorrect.

  3. Hello, I have only recently started visiting your website, and I must say I like it. Anyway, my question is, for personal use, is there some way to download this update? I have your old calculator, and I was just wondering if this was a literal update, or only an in-browser program. Thanks!

Leave a Reply