>>96090232
>According to the definition in >>96089818 #, apparently so.
Then you’re an idiot, and you still don’t know what physics is. Something isn’t physics because we can look at it. It’s physics because there’s something to it. It’s there. Something is there.

When you vouch for magic being apart from physics, do you assume it’s there? Do you assume it is physically present?

>It does in fact require the word not be filled with irony
No it doesn’t. You said you wanted a useful label for the sake of a game. A lot of labels are ironic or disingenuous for the sake of the game. They’re just labels.

>There is a line I am fine with being impermeable to materialism between "fact" and "fiction", so that the possibilities of worldviews other than materialism can be explored.
You want other worldviews to be explored while denying them their presence. You’re essentially arguing that they can’t exist if you insist that they have no substance to them. They aren’t there.

>Only according to your insistence on injecting your worldview into another.
No. Physics is just understanding existence. You can easily replace materialism with there-ism. Christians believe God is real, or that he’s there in some way, present. That mean there’s substance to Him. Saying otherwise is just retracting your words.

>You think math is the base-level logic
It is. Math is found not made.

Even your fiction has an essential mathematical shape to it.