The famous quote from Arthur C. Clarke "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." has convinced most rational people of its seemingly inherit truth. Mostly because it seems unlikely for this statement to be possibly invalid in a logical sense. Yet I argue both against and for it. And in the latter; extract the meaning of magic from it.
The use of the word technology implies an approach with scientific methods. This already shows us one core flaw of the statement. Science is always limited within the scope of perceived and provable reality. As a scientific theory can only be accepted until proven logically invalid. Thus for there to be a judging of any fact, there need to be both rules and consistency. This already brings to light the fundamental difference and thus properties of magic. It is both illogical and beyond any universal border.
Transposed it is possible for magic to look like technology. Because the inherent chaotic behaviour of magic makes it both a valid and invalid equality at the same time. Thus technology is excluded from reaching all the possibilities of magic, because it has to follow universal laws or at the very least be internally consistent. An argument that science could cover the scope of chaos itself is ridiculous, as its core property is and remains logical testing. Eventually this might mean the scientific method might be replaced by a more open model, but these unlimited views might for now, be too restrictive on our creativity. In conclusion his statement turned around, would've been more appropriate: "Sufficient magic is indistinguishable from any advanced technology."
Following from this, the long description for magic would be "Magic is the transformation of any perception; of all manifestation, neither localized in space, time or dimension, or bound by universal law or property without any inherent restriction."
A concise definition would be "Magic is the transcognition of reality."
Addendum: In a later discussion with a good friend, I discovered the quote by Clarke is correct when intepreted by first-order logic. A is indistinguishable from B, does not mean B is indistinguishable from A. None the less, to make a described distinction remains benificial.
Experimental morphogenetic field sentence: "Billie Jean has nut my lover"