How magic as a signature practice creates reliable change

The scientific article “Magic as Signature Practice: An Informational Engineering Model in a Causal-Symmetric Framework” by Dr. Elias Rubenstein asks a straightforward question that is usually avoided: when do so-called magical or initiatory practices create a real, stable change in a person — and when are they only atmosphere, expectation, or group psychology? Instead of treating magic as either supernatural or as a vague placebo effect, the paper proposes a third view: some traditions work because they function like lawful information-interventions in the human system.   

At the center is the idea of a “signature practice.” This means a clearly structured protocol that carries a specific informational “signature.” In simple terms: not every ritual is the same. A practice counts as signature-based only if its precise content and structure add an effect beyond the general context. The paper therefore separates two things. First, context — setting, relationship, expectation, group coherence. Context can genuinely change people and is always expected to do so. Second, the signature itself — the targeted informational content of the protocol. The scientific question is whether the signature produces an extra, reliable change on top of context. 

To make this practical, the article describes five simple conditions a signature practice must meet. First, it needs clear symbols and forms: words, gestures, images, rules — a language that can be described and checked. Second, those symbols must actually fit what the practice is aiming at; the meaning cannot fall apart when the situation or “scale” changes. Third, repetition matters: disciplined attention and training stabilize the change so it doesn’t vanish after a short high. Fourth, every developmental stage has non-negotiable boundaries and commitments (for example ethical and behavioral requirements). If those are ignored, a higher practice cannot take hold in a stable way. Fifth, the results must survive independent checks: the change should last, show up across real life, and remain present even under critical counter-tests. 

Because the model is built this way, it becomes testable. A well-matched signature protocol should consistently work better than context alone. A deliberately mismatched but otherwise identical protocol should not add anything beyond context. And the stronger and clearer the diagnostic fit between practice and person, the stronger the specific effect should become. In other words: magic, in this framework, is not a belief claim. It is a precise claim about when structured practice produces lawful, reproducible transformation.   

The relevance of the paper lies in this shift. It neither glorifies magic nor dismisses it. Instead it gives a modern standard for separating real, stable practice effects from pure context stories — and for comparing different traditions on the same clear criteria.

You can find the full scientific article here:

Elias Rubenstein (2025): Magic as Signature Practice: An Informational Engineering Model in a Causal-Symmetric Framework
PhilPapers: philpapers.org/rec/RUBMAS