It seems to me that any definition of mystical you might use really just means that we don't understand it. Saying that something is mystical is a statement of ignorance, not a fundamental property.
Not even remotely. People various religious and meditative traditions are certain that they understand mystical subjects and can even make them the subject of academics. In depth understanding has no bearing or function in defining mysticism (though granted the word itself comes from the root for mystery). What I'm referring to is that which has it's cause beyond the finite confines of space and time, and which can affect space and or time with itself being part of a regular chain of causality.
This statement made me curious. I looked up definitions of the word mysticism and came up with the following
1.
a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation.
None of these match the one you are using, so I can see how misunderstanding can arise. The first two definitions have no practical uses, and the third is clearly not what you mean.
Your idea seems to be that magic is mystical only if it comes from beyond space and time, the same space mystics dip in to. Why is this? Some mathematicians argue that mathematics is above the dynamic physical world we live in, a part of the infinite, perhaps even a view into the mind of God. Yet we also use mathematics to design jet engines. It's absolutely practical and perhaps the ultimate "science" or science-like discipline.
Incidentally, by this definition, Allomancy is totally mystical. It's the power of a god, the essence of creation itself, being channeled through people. It is also completely regular because creation itself is (in the Cosmere) fundamentally ordered.
Things outside of space and time can have rules too, you know. If they do, science is totally willing to take a look-see, as long as everybody can agree on them. If you argue that they can't have rules on how they affect causality, than you really are simply back to ignorance. Maybe we can't change the fact that we are ignorance, but still ignorance.
Black holes and particle accelerators violate Newtonian physics.
Again no. Particles themselves may, though we can't actually (pardon the pun) quantafy any that do as yet, with the possible exception of light itself.
This? This is why I shouldn't discuss science on the internet.
News flash: Newton's Laws as a fundamental theory have been out of fashion for more than a century. I think you are using the term as a substitute for "physical laws that we understand." But particles do seem to obey laws, and
we know what they are to excellent approximation, and the particles obey them obscenely well. They just aren't
Newton's laws. Appealing to known physics isn't going to impress me, because I know just how much isn't known. An awful lot of scientists suddenly become mystics when they get to the boundaries. And in their case, I can definitely call it mysticism, and it is
definitely a statement of ignorance, because they are claiming to know the unknowable through science, which just can't happen.
... classic elements in "magic" ...
I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of the topic. Are you arguing that because the external forms of Allomancy are not those of traditional magic systems, that somehow Allomancy itself is less magical? Would you still say this if you saw Allomancy from the outside, and people refused to explain the system to you?
You've fallen into the classic trap that you have been alluding to. "any sufficiently advanced [technology] ... would appear to be magic." But that classic quote itself acknowledges that there is a clear distinction between magic and that which is technologically advanced but occulted by the witness's ignorance.
No, I'm pretty sure the original author of that quote didn't believe in magic at all (at least, if it was actually coined by any of the sci-fi authors it is usually attributed to). It's a pretty solid statement about human nature and ignorance, not a deep philosophy.
Also, how does this relate to my original question? I asked if you would view Allomancy mystically if it wasn't explained to you. You should answer that directly. Especially since Allomancy represents the direct influence of the power of creation being channeled through a human directly from the essence of a god, and is a fine candidate for being truly mystical by your definition.
I see mysticism in the cosmology of Mistborn, but the actual practice of Allomancy is coldy rational and depends on macro-physics (e.g. gravitation, conservation of mass and energy, thermodynamics, etc.).
I would view this paragraph cited above as simply stating that we understand Allomancy better than the other parts of the world-building, and thus it seems more controlled and down-to-Earth.
And again you would be misreading. WE (the readers) are not really relevant to whether Allomancy is magical, technological or biological. What is relevant is that the Causal agent is biology, the active process is the conversion of mater to energy and the effect is one that obeys natural physical laws. There is no real difference in terms of process and effect between burning tin and bio-luminescence. I would be very disappointed if you told me fireflies were magical simply because we readers can't figure out how to make our own butts glow.
Beyond the whole "channeling a god" bit, it's purely a natural phenomenon, I'm sure.
Or is the fact that you know what channeling a god will do that irks you and makes you think it less magical? That you have knowledge and that the knowledge can be contained fairly easily in a human mind?
Psionics is totally magical. They violate Newton's laws (and Maxwell's equations) out the ears, and have absolutely no remotely plausible theory or mechanism in the real world. The fact that such things show up so often in Science Fiction (although fantasy uses the ideas often enough, too, often as part of a larger magic system!) is an interesting historical fact, and totally blurs the line between science fiction and fantasy.
Actually, psionics are generally supposed to use some physical sensitivity and some quantifiable capacity of human biology and energy potential that is "natural" but has yet to be discovered in the real world. This is why fields like parapsychology exist and schools like UC Berkley spend so much money on the subject. I agree that it's a dead end because psionics are fictional and there is nothing there to ever discover in the real world. But using that as a criterion for whether they are magical makes, supra-luminal and temporal travel by matter equally magical. It just isn't a sound tool for evaluation.
Your argument here is the fatal flaw in your whole understanding. This basic statement that psionics might not be magical hinges on the fact that psionics
might be understood it some day in some fictional world. Again, your definition comes down to ignorance. Sci-fi settings usually assume that it has been figured out; hence it isn't magical.
