In the world of Harry Potter, what is the difference between a wizard and a muggle fundamentally.?

Question

In the world of Harry Potter, what is the difference between a wizard and a muggle fundamentally? On the basic level, both are human and their bodies both work in the same exact way. I.E. wizards can be stabbed to death and killed with magic, just as muggles can. Also, it seems that the whole idea of being a Wizard is close to that of Monarchy. You are born a royal because your mother and father are a royal, but there is nothing that defines you as different other then that. The same is true with wizards, who marry and procreate with other wizards in order to keep purity in the bloodline, but this isn't to say that wizards don't also marry muggles, and here we have Mud-Bloods, half wizard half muggle, being able to do all the things a wizard can, even though they are half muggle.

Now this brings the question up of why wizards are different, because it seems to me that there is no difference, seeing as how half muggles can do magic and are fundamentally the same as all other wizards and muggles alike. This also raises the question of why muggle folk can't use magic, and more importantly, why they can't attend the Wizardry schools.

Finally, I have to question the charms around magical places that make muggles forget where they are or simply wipe their memory, such as the charm around Hogwarts. How does it discern from say, a wizard fro a muggle, or better yet, a mud-blood from a muggle? I mean what, do the mud-blood students only forget stuff HALF of the time? Also, going back to fact that they are fundamentally the same, how does a charm discern between the two? Perhaps you could concede to the idea that it's "magic", but that seems to be a total cop out.

Answer 1

It's the magic in their genetics.



For example, let's look at the more realistic example of eye colour. Let's say brown (A) eyes are dominant and blue (B) eyes are recessive. Person 1 has AA genes - this means that their eye colour will be brown. Person 2, however, has BB genes, meaning that since there is no A to dominate, their eyes are blue.



Now, if these two people had children, the only possible outcome for this child's genes would be AB. Meaning that, although they can pass blue eyes to their children, their own eyes will be brown. This is how magic works - mudbloods carry magic because, although they carry the recessive non-magic gene from their muggle parent, they also have a dominant magical gene from their wizard parent.



This also explains the case of squibs. If both parents are AB, then the possible genetic outcomes of their children would be: AA, AB, or BB. In the case of it being BB, that child, although they have brown eyed(/magical) parents, will be born with blue eyes (/without magic).



Therefore, the muggles can't attend magic school because they have no A gene - only B. Likewise, the sensors and charms discern between muggles and wizards using their genetic makeup - if they have a certain chromosome, they are allowed in.

Answer 2

From the books, I gathered that the only difference between the two is that one can do magic and one can't. Voldemort and the Death Eaters believe that muggles and muggle-borns are lesser than they are, but that's proven to be untrue.



I think wizardry is somewhat of a genetic trait. It's never really explained in the books, but someone either can do magic or they can't. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense for a muggle to go to a wizarding school and vice-versa. If you were a muggle, would you want to go to a school that taught you how to use magic if you couldn't use magic? It'd be pointless.



If you're going to examine each spell in the potterverse that closely, then you're going to be thinking for a long time.

In any case, I assume that the charm works by sensing whether or not an approaching person has magical ability/magic. If they don't, then it activates. Or, it could be that a witch or wizard has the innate ability to see past rudimentary charms of a certain type.

Answer 3

But, magic *wasn't* about strictly about bloodlines or heritage. 100% muggle-born people like Hermione became magic, and some, like Harry's neighbor Mrs. Figgs, were descended from witches and wizards and yet weren't magical at all (squibs).



Furthermore, mudbloods, half-bloods, and pure-bloods alike were all shown to have equal power. The only way to become stronger and better was through study, experimentation, and training.



So, going by that, magic wasn't about the idea of aristocracy, it was more a "trait" anyone could inherit, like an eye color, but one that you were just more *likely* to inherit if others in your family had it as well. Which is logical really, because that's how all things are, from cancer risk to body shape to intelligence.



I guess that's the answer. The difference between a muggle and witch/wizard is simply the "trait" of magic, the receiving of which is played by odds.



As for "do the mud-blood students only forget stuff HALF of the time?" No...of course not. Because, like I said, they're not at HALF power. You either have magic or you don't, regardless of your parentage. "Mudblood" means someone with NO magical ancestry. You're confusing the terms. Half-blood doesn't mean "half power"- it just means that one parent is magical and one isn't, and you then inherited the magical side, fully. Get it?

Answer 4

Muggles can't do magic.

Wizards can do magic.