Good heavens, Sriram - it seems to me this is an example of what the philosopher Stephen Laws would describe as 'going nuclear': to start with you've fallen into the fallacy of equivocation in relation to terms such as 'magic' and 'logic' which are being wrongly used and with different implications or meanings.
It would probably be best to drop 'logic' since you aren't talking about logical contradictions: the open door that is shut or the square circle. In this respect you seem to be talking about things that are underpinned by justified but provisional knowledge, albeit some knowledge will be dependable enough - such as the science supporting aviation.
Then there is 'magic', but you aren't talking about stage magicians where we know there is an explanation even if we can't work out what it is. Neither are we talking about stuff we don't yet fully understand but there are sufficient provisional theories or knowledge to drive forward incremental on-going study: the development of some aspects of medical science is an example. So, if we borrow the Forum time machine (handy for thought experiments like this) and bring someone from, say, the first half of the 17th century forward to now and they saw this computer or a jumbo jet going overhead it may well seem to them like 'magic' - but we know otherwise, hence the well-known quote from Arthur C Clarke.
So, when the term 'magic' is used here it probably as a pejorative term, like 'woo', to imply that there is sufficient knowledge to rebut whatever the claim is, or that the claim is simply fallacious or incoherent and can be rejected.
So:
The fact that we are living on a rock that is flying through space around the sun at 67000 miles per hour and the sun itself is flying around the galaxy at 220 kms per second... is not very logical.
It isn't 'logical', as noted above, and the speed of the Earth as it orbits the Sun is around 1,000 mph (not 67,000 mph) - this is an example of justified knowledge.
I am sure most people, even philosophers and scientists of that day when it was discovered, would have found this a logical impossibility. But it is nevertheless a fact.
Indeed it is - but to establish such facts is an incremental process via theories, methods and investigation (in this case despite the interference of religious thinking in earlier times).
There are many other such logical impossibilities....
Wasn't X-ray a logical impossibility before it was discovered?
Isn't a chemical molecule DNA) replicating itself and containing the entire information for formation of complex organisms, a logical impossibility?
Not illogical, but while these might be surprising to earlier generations of scientists who weren't around to see the incremental progress involved they are unremarkable today.
Aren't parallel universes existing just inches from us a logical impossibility?
Isn't the entire universe arising out of a String vibrating in eleven dimensions a logical impossibility?
Isn't the Singularity arising from nothing, a logical impossibility?
Isn't the idea of the universe expanding dramatically in an instant, a logical impossibility?
Isn't the fact that elementary particles influence one another instantaneously across the universe (non local action) a logical impossibility?
Not 'logically impossible' but these are areas where there is more to be done, which may involve either rejecting these ideas should the basis for doing so become clear: meantime the work goes on and 'we don't yet know' applies.
None of these things are very logical...but we regard them as facts or at least as meaningful theories. All of them are bizarre and completely against any logic. But once we know that they are fact or that some respected scientists have accepted them as a possibility, we start accepting them as logical.
Leaving aside your mild hysteria, these theories aren't just guesses: they are hypothesis based on provisional knowledge that will either be rejected where the evidence contradicts them, leading to revised theories, or they will be provisionally supported. As yet there are insufficient grounds to accept them but investigations continue in much the same way that, for example, miasma theory was rejected in favour of germ theory in the late 19th century.
So...using torridon's interpretation, most of the universe is really and truly....Magic!
Nope, and I doubt your interpretation of what Torridon has said in numerous posts is correct.
In other words, what we consider as 'logic' is not something written in stone or something that is fixed in time. It is not simply 2+2=4. Logic is much more than that and much more flexible too.
Logic also evolves, adapts and expands to fit the requirements of our mind. It is just a product of our intellect and as our experiences expand our intellect expands and....our logic also expands.
Nope - your use of 'logic' is wrong: I think you mean 'knowledge'.
