Real Ultimate Power, A Magical Flowchart Options

(IMG:http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/518/realup.png)

>>If magic is only a psychological tool, I feel it should be stated outright - it would drastically affect its application and theory, I think.

why would it change anything about magic either way? - it may change people's *perception* of magic, but not magic itself as it never changes - magic is exactly the same today as it was at the beginning of time - the problem may lie in your belief in (and definition of) what magic actually is and does

again, what you believe, truly subconsciously believe, is what you would observe (to use a phrase from quantum physics)

keeping it very, very simple, supposing i light a candle to protect someone who is in danger (simple enough, say a soldier getting shot at in battle), and back it with intent (carve symbols in the candle, say a simple spell over it as i'm setting it up or lighting it, whatever), and they come to no harm although they were surrounded by danger and should have come to harm statistically, then that is proof enough for me and i am satisfied that magic, as i define it, exists

and if i enchant an object (via spirit) to produce something (via spirit or whatever means), and even the tiniest portion of what i meant for it to produce (bring to me) falls out of it just once, then that is proof enough for me that magic exists as i define it

and if i have a telepathic conversation with an invisible entity (either evoked or casual contact), then that is proof enough for me that magic exists (and also invisible entities) as i define it (and them)

and absolutely none of it is enough physical proof to satisfy wither you (or the amazing randi, who is offering 1 million dollars for inconvertible proof that magic exists)