If there is science to everything and anything that exists according to physicists, doesn't this mean that all magic in fiction has science, and is physics? It's just not understood completely? It isn't really magic? Even if it's literal hocus pocus?

How do you prevent magic from no longer being seen as magic? How does this affect your games?

>>96086465 (OP)
>Ma! I made the thread again!

>>96086465 (OP)
Kill yourself

Academia is riddled with a disenchantment narrative. Call something magic at your own peril. Magic is a private matter. At the edges. Isolated and isolating. Once you deconstruct the essences that go into magic you realize that magic is a personal thing, or a point of view. The mind's eye. Art. "Magic". Magic survives as something to describe, not to define. Is it wonderous and mysterious? Does it bewilder? Is it beautiful? Is it enchanting? You don't need much to throw a "wizard" into science-fiction--you just need a mad scientist believing strange things and doing strange things, or some alien sage totally transcendent to anything you're familiar with.

I'm actually of the opinion that science-fiction is a lot more magical, or fantastical, than plain typical fantasy. Look at Futurama and compare it to Disenchantment slop. There is nothing more alien or occult, and thus magical, than the deep black abyss that is space. It is as horrific as it is godlike. The cosmos is -the- magical frontier. The wizard looking to the stars in their tower orrery. The classical, stereotypical wizard trope or image is itself due to the natural philosopher aesthetic of the past, like Hermetics mixing alchemy with astrology, or just astrologer-priests in garb.

>>96086520
All. Of. This.

Keep it secret. Keep it safe. Keep it arcane.

I really don’t think it’s possible for magic to always be magic. Other than the chemistry in the brain seeing something as magic. That “wow, idk” factor. That’s just the wonders of life for you.

>>96086465 (OP)
>If there is science to everything and anything that exists according to physicists
Citation needed.

>doesn't this mean that all magic in fiction has science, and is physics?
Not a problem if you accept particular noun definitions instead of hyperfixating on the adjective.

>How do you prevent magic from no longer being seen as magic?
Doesn't matter if you define it in a way that doesn't care about how it's seen.

>How does this affect your games?
It doesn't because the premise almost guarantees a horrible derail into arguing about the word-choice of the game rules, and so the premise is rejected at the door.

>>96086520
>Once you deconstruct the essences that go into magic you realize that magic is a personal thing
And if you bother trying to preserve the sub-sets "magic" began with, this deconstruction doesn't work.

>Magic survives as something to describe, not to define.
Not inside the counterfactual where the historic criteria are met by an objective phenomenon, as is the context of /tg/.

>>96086587
>I really don’t think it’s possible for magic to always be magic
Doesn't matter what you think, the legion of screeching retards are more authoritative about what a word means than everyone in the ivory tower put together.

>>96086634
Oh god it’s this retard.

>>96086634
You don’t know what science is, lmao. You think it, physics, just stops somewhere? Like oil and water? Not how it works.

You’ve been told off already. >>96068547
You’re just doubling down like a child on the internet. Probably because you are one.

>>96086634
>the legion of screeching retards
You mean the people who scream “well, in MY setting, magic is THIS”, anon? It’s almost like… magic is whatever the fuck.

>>96086520
That's why I find the concept of "psionics" in science fiction fascinating. It's obviously magic, everyone knows it's magic, nobody is ever fooled for a second, but all the same it feels so alien precisely because it's in a supposedly non-fantasy setting. It feels like an intruder, something that plays by no rules of known science in any capacity - even if it has some testable, predictable patterns - yet is undeniably real. I can imagine entire cadres of physicists burning out and going mad or suicidal because even after decades of research they're still no closer to understanding what it truly is and what makes it tick, only what it does. It's the ultimate black box.

>>96086465 (OP)
>How does this affect your games?
It doesn't. Now fuck off.

>>96086671
>I can imagine entire cadres of physicists burning out and going mad or suicidal because even after decades of research they're still no closer to understanding what it truly is and what makes it tick, only what it does. It's the ultimate black box.
Scientists are already like this in regards to gravity, or the whole determinism vs uncertainty debate. They get so schizo they immediately enter free will debates.

>>96086641
It is you who is the retard, because the position you defend fundamentally requires the prescription of definitions, which is not how language works.

>>96086657
>You don’t know what science is, lmao. You think it, physics, just stops somewhere?
On account of this understanding of what the words mean being required to understand the foundational works that got us to the world in which your position is vaguely comprehensible. Your definitions failing to back-test is a valid point to refuse them on.

>You’ve been told off already.
Most of that post works perfectly in the reverse. The difference is that I can point at a lot of dictionaries giving definitions that differ from those the wonderfaggot arguments require be the only ones in use.

>>96086668
>You mean the people who scream “well, in MY setting, magic is THIS”, anon?
Correct. The word does not reduce out of being a noun.

>It’s almost like… magic is whatever the fuck.
Incorrect, the result is a wide range of particular definitions. Each of those settings bears its own independent jargon meaning of the word.

>>96086695
>incorrect
If you agree that magic is “Well, in MY setting”, then you’re agreeing with me that magic is whatever the fuck. You’re just not consciously aware of it because you’re only here to argue. Lol.

>>96086695
>y-you’re just a wonderfaggot
Ah, you’re in denial about the essence that leads up to magic. Magic wouldn’t be here without artistic ignorance, wonder or mystery. Sorry.

>>96086702
What game do you play where any of this garbage is relevant, anon?

>>96086712
I live in the real world where magic is just some opinion being projected. I am transcendent to games. Even Dungeons & Dragons plays around with the fourth wall. All fiction is a simulation.

>>96086722
This is /tg/. So if you don't want to talk about traditional games, then gtfo and spam /x/ with your trash opinions instead.

>>96086671
>>96086689
Reminder that half of the scientific community can’t agree over whether sex is binary or not. Science is a religion. It’s not actually based on fact as much as it claims to be. Not when morals and bias is taking it over.

>>96086732
Nah. All magic and fantasy comes from stories and ignorance and wonder and mystery and interpreting nature. Games are born of this inspiration. You just don’t want alternative takes to be discussed for some reason. Do you even care about games if you keep wanting it to become so stagnant?

>>96086739
It's because you've been spamming this shit for years without getting fucking anywhere or having a point to any of this garbage. Just get a blog and fuck off, you retarded samefagging ape.

>>96086749
You’ve been spamming “shut up wonderfaggot” for years not realizing what goes into magic. You’re disingenuous and likely mentally damaged. It’s like crying when someone tells you what goes into a given recipe. Do you hate lasagna?

>>96086702
>If you agree that magic is “Well, in MY setting”, then you’re agreeing with me that magic is whatever the fuck.
No, I'm disagreeing in favor of particular works of fiction having internally self-consistent and objective meanings of the word. Demonstrate that you understand what "words have more than one meaning" entails by explaining the contranym "literally".

>>96086711
>Ah, you’re in denial about the essence that leads up to magic.
Your argument is not "leads up to magic", it's an ahistorical deconstruction refusing to address any particular case in favor of pathological insistence on totalizing midwittery.

>Magic wouldn’t be here without artistic ignorance, wonder or mystery.
Yes it would, because ignorance and wonder have nothing to do with how the word started. And the "mystery" was merely priviledged information, EXPLICITLY self-identified as such in the earliest use among the Magi.

>>96086722
>I live in the real world where magic is just some opinion being projected.
But we are discussing counterfactuals where the word's use as a particular noun is correct.

>>96086739
>You just don’t want alternative takes to be discussed for some reason.
No, I explicitly want alternative takes and your totalizing midwitery precludes them. "But somebody disagrees" CANNOT be a valid counter-argument for any particular meaning of "magic" to be discussed.

>>96086764
>You’ve been spamming “shut up wonderfaggot” for years not realizing what goes into magic.
Because it's not what goes into any of the very long list and history of meanings not synonymous with "wondrous".

>>96086689
>Scientists are already like this in regards to gravity, or the whole determinism vs uncertainty debate. They get so schizo they immediately enter free will debates.
Even better!

>>96086764
Honestly, I didn't even know people were calling you "wonderfaggot", but maybe I'll start doing that. Thanks. Now fuck off, wonderfaggot.

>>96086782
>counterfactuals
You really need to up your vocabulary.

>>96086809
You need to address them instead of deflecting with things outside the conditional hypothetical

If it violates the conservation laws, it's magic. Simple as.

If it doesn't, it's at best alchemy.

>>96086826
>If it violates the conservation laws
Higher dimensions. Physicists believe there could be more than ten.

>>96086835
The fiction is not bound to our laws of nature, totalizing midwit.

>>96086850
Fiction exists within itself, and existence is physics.

HOW did you fuckheads take the bait when the last one is only an hour old

>>96086864
Cause he's straight up board-spamming at this point
>>96063050
>>96082802
>>96084074

>>96086857
...This is relevant to conservation laws being trivial to violate in a counterfactual how, exactly?

>>96086875
>he thinks I made that thread
You are actually demented. You got scolded ok your lacking physics sense and now you’re doubling down.

>>96086877
>...This is relevant to conservation laws being trivial to violate in a counterfactual how, exactly?
Lol. If something happens, it’s because of causality, physics. Trivializing anything is a part of nature.

>>96086898
>that thread
>not "those threads"
So you admit you are spamming. Lovely.

Arguing that magic can’t be physics is downright religious (indistinguishable from hating on materialism) and you need to take it to /x/ sorry

>>96086913
Meds. You hate science and you can’t escape escapism.

>>96086922
Fuck off, wonderfaggot.

>>96086465 (OP)
Retards will do the most spectacular mental gymnastic not to admit that magic is essentially just another branch of science (aka studying the rules of reality).

>>96086927
You really think magic could exist without being built or led up to first kek you’re so stupid it’s just sad

>>96086936
I legitimately don't care, I just hate spammers. Fuck off wonderfaggot

No matter how ritualistic, how religious, or how woo woo wonky doo doo your magic is in a given fictional world, there’s still a hypothetical angle where it won’t be seen as religious or magical or woo woo wonky doo doo.

But you’re arguing with the guy who says aliens can simultaneously know everything and not know everything.

>these aliens know all of physics, and they land on some world and see a person doing something they don’t understand—that’s magic
>but you just said they know everything about physics

He genuinely can’t think. He can’t do hypotheticals.

>>96086947
We wouldn’t be bullying you this hard had you not been so stupid lol

>>96086953
>We
And now he's schizophrenic, too

Magic is (like everything else):
>Do X to produce effect Y.
You can experiment on it, study it, try to understand the rules of it. Yeah, over time it will be more understood and will obviously lose its mysticism, no other way around it. Otherwise it means your magic is
>Do X, but it can do Y, Z or W, nobody knows in advance
In which case no one will practice magic in the first place because one guy may first draw a rune that will cast a fireball and next time he will try to draw that rune nothing happens, with no underlying reasons besides randomness. In that case no one would ever discover how to cast spells in the first place. At best you'd have a setting where people sometimes manifest random and unexpected magical effects by doing random actions and repeating said action won't recreate the magical effect.
Very mystical and mysterious, also very stupid.

>>96086959
I’m not the one assuming one person is behind all the threads you hate.

>this shit for like the 10th time this week
Consider lobotomizing yourself.

>>96086935
And he keeps crying/whining “wonder faggot” as though wonder has nothing to do with it. The board would be better off had he left and never came back. But he might have nothing else going on his life, so I don’t know…

>>96086985
This samefagging fellating is sincerely pathetic. Clearly you have a magic spine to be able to bend that far to suck your own dick.

>>96086998
That’s legitimately a different person and you’re panicking now. Maybe stop acting retarded if you don’t want to look retarded.

>>96086908
Again, how does this guarantee conservation laws? Why can there not be a natural law who's function outputs a higher value than the sum of all its inputs even in a counterfactual where ours are explicitly wrong?

>>96086917
>Arguing that magic can’t be physics is downright religious
Only if you assume "physics" MUST be all-encompassing, which no few physicists and quite large swaths of the world disagree on.

>>96086935
Science remains a very particular process of empirical reduction. To simplify it beyond this inevitably loses properties required for its success.

>>96086949
As I said the last time:
>And that angle can simply be factually incorrect.

>The argument depends on the far more widespread view that physics does not encompass all things, and so knowing all of it does not mean knowing everything.

>Says the one who cannot grasp the hypothetical of specific archaic conceptions of "magic" being objective phenomena.

>>96086977
And all that doesn't matter when your definition of "magic" extends beyond the synonym to "wondrous".

>>96087015
Maybe point out the totalizing midwit is repeating the exact same posts he made not even a day ago.

What would your husband think of this, of you entertaining other men?

>>96086465 (OP)
No
Physics is "do X, receive Y result, because of Z" with the chain of causality stretching across the whole spectrum of spacetime from the beginning of the universe tot he end.
Magic is "do X, receive Y result" and the chain of causality is discrete and limited to X -> Y.

>>96087032
No? That just means that the Z factor is not understood yet lmao. Every single phenomenon known today as "scientific" was once in the category of X->Y with Z being unknown. Lots of phenomenons studied right now by scientists are in this category too.
There are rules, we just don't understand them yet.

>>96087029
You keep posting loads of nothing. You type big words trying to act smart but you are really just a big idiot.

>>96087029
>Science remains a very particular process of empirical reduction. To simplify it beyond this inevitably loses properties required for its success.
No. There is the scientific method to apply, and the scientific information lying in wait, for all time, ‘the music of the spheres’ as Einstein put it. The symphony of everything continues to play whether we listen in or not.

>>96087040
You're so retarded you can't even comprehend my post. I explicitly disqualified there being a Z factor.
>No? That just means that the Z factor is not understood yet lmao
There is no Z factor
>b-but hidden variables-
There are no hidden variables

The other anons are right. You're just an idiot who keeps making shit up.

>>96087062
>I explicitly disqualified there being a Z factor.
Impossible. Can’t be done. There is always going to be a background to the foreground.

>There is no Z factor
>There are no hidden variables
So you don’t know what physics is. There are hidden variables everywhere.

>You're just an idiot who keeps making shit up.
I mean, that would be you, since you seem to think magic is separate from physics.

>>96087062
>There is no Z factor
That's impossible at a fundamental level. If you do X several times and it always produces Y, then there is a Z factor.
>The other anons are right. You're just an idiot who keeps making shit up.
That was my first post in this thread my brother. Stop being so paranoid.

>>96087076
>Impossible. Can’t be done.
Almost like it's....magic.
>So you don’t know what physics is. There are hidden variables everywhere.
lol its a good thing that magic isn't physics
>>96087090
>That's impossible at a fundamental level. If you do X several times and it always produces Y, then there is a Z factor.

Quick IQ test for both of you: Do the laws of physics apply beyond the physical universe? Do the laws of physics predate the existence of the physical universe?

>>96086465 (OP)
>This fucking shit bait once more

>>96087054
>and the scientific information lying in wait, for all time, ‘the music of the spheres’ as Einstein put it.
No there isn't, Einstein is no authority on the philosophy of science because the man's great work was Rationalist epistemology! A great thinker making a category error does not excuse you insisting upon it, it just makes both of you wrong.

>>96087076
>Impossible. Can’t be done. There is always going to be a background to the foreground.
>There are hidden variables everywhere.
>>96087090
>That's impossible at a fundamental level.
Not for the conditional hypothetical in which that is the express condition. If you wish to continue disagreeing, demonstrate it is actually self-contradictory, not mere assertions that it contradicts our reality.

>>96087125
Where is your wizard casting his fireball retard? Yeah, in our universe.

>>96087162
You failed the IQ test, you couldn't even answer the question because you knew that it solves what you are insisting is a problem.

>>96086465 (OP)
Magic is pure will, acting freely beyond any material bounds. While it may take up aspects of the measurable reality, it can never be wholly reduced to a simple operation of those elements, because of the unquantifiable essence of the will. Free will taken to its limits, an overturning for brief instants of the deterministic world

>>96087133
If only the mods could get off their fat asses for once to do something about it

>>96086465 (OP)
No you fucking globalist ape, magic has no science per definition and works without explainable cause-effect by nature

>>96087252
t. Failed his science class

This generation really is hopeless.

>>96088223
Fuck off, wonderfag

>>96087142
>Einstein is no authority on the philosophy of science because the man's great work was Rationalist epistemology!
Yes, and he’s an authority on rationality, which -has- a (natural) philosophy. He’s rational to the point where he knows that physics permeates everything.

This isn’t even philosophical. It’s just common sense. You don’t even know what epistemology is, to be Frank. It’s not an excuse to assume that science is only one method of understanding.

>>96088250
You’re angry because you can’t think.

>>96088286
Fuck off, wonderfag

>>96087125
>Almost like it's....magic.
Something impossible can’t even exist in fiction, dumbass. If it happens, it’s possible. It’s physics.

Fuck me you need to be thrown into a re-education camp or something. You’re a net negative to the human race.

>>96087125
>lol its a good thing that magic isn't physics
Does it exist? Then it’s physics.
>no it’s fiction it doesn’t exist
Does fiction exist within itself?

>>96088294
This guy's gonna have a hard time when he learns about all the causality violations of Sidereal charms in Exalted, hoo boy.

Oh, wait, nobody in this thread knows anything or plays games.

>>96088294
>>96088305

>>96088324
You keep using that gif

>>96088333
Considering you keep misusing words you clearly don't understand, it's not a wonder random anons keep posting it

>>96088324
He’s not wrong.

— ‘Physics is often called the "everything" science because it explores the fundamental laws and principles that govern the universe, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest structures like galaxies. It provides the foundational framework upon which other sciences, like chemistry, biology, and even aspects of social science, are built. In essence, other sciences are often seen as "applied physics" because their principles can be traced back to the underlying laws of physics.’

Physics is just assumed to cover everything.

>>96088333
Because he’s retarded. He keeps using the same words and he keeps using the same gif.

>>96088339
What word? Physics? It’s the science of everything. You being butthurt about it doesn’t change that fact.

Maybe you should rethink your life if you are really going to act like this. Do you really think you know better?

>>96088346
>>96088357
Cute samefag

>>96088294
where have I heard about atheists wanting to put people in camps before...
>If it happens, it’s possible. It’s physics.
This isn't even true in our own realty, moron. What physics caused the universe to exist?

>>96088324
Are you a troll by chance? You can’t just say he’s wrong when he’s literally not wrong. You’re going up against the entire scientific community at this point if you’re assuming that physics isn’t the All.

>>96088375
>where have I heard about atheists wanting to put people in camps before...
I don’t even hate religion. I do hate this level of malicious ignorance, though. You are truly, dangerously uneducated.

>This isn't even true in our own realty, moron.
Yes it is. Not sure why you’re stating lies.

>>96088382
I was arguing he's been abusing the shit out of the word "fiction", but sure, go off on whining about physics, since even scientists agree that there are still plenty of things that we don't yet understand that [our current grasp of physics] can't explain.

>>96088370
They both responded to different posts. You are unhinged lmao.

>>96088395
>conveniently ignores that part of my post proving him wrong while quoting
ok you're just trolling
carry on

>>96088401
>since even scientists agree that there are still plenty of things that we don't yet understand that [our current grasp of physics] can't explain.
They don’t say it’s not physics, though. What they don’t understand is physics.

Our observed laws and theories of physics =|= the physical reality that is physics

You’re not getting this.

>This thread again

>>96088409
Except he’s not wrong, and you saying he’s wrong doesn’t make him wrong. The fact is, physics is the all absorbing field of science that involves all other sciences.

>>96088415
I legitimately don't give a shit about physics, I just want the autists that keep whinging about magic to fuck off already from the board since they're not even entertaining at this point

>>96088273
>Yes, and he’s an authority on rationality
No he was not, he was merely a very smart man who reasoned his way into things then beyond observation. He had no education in the systems of logic underlying the framework he leap from, and his words on the matter well demonstrate this by being at odds with said framework.

>You don’t even know what epistemology is
It is the branch of philosophy studying the nature and scope of knowledge.

>It’s not an excuse to assume that science is only one method of understanding.
Yes it is, being that it is literally the field of "how things are known" to which those contributing to science are a narrow, if successful, subset.

>>96088294
>Something impossible can’t even exist in fiction
Unless by "possible" you extend far beyond the limits of our particular natural laws into hypotheticals with explicitly differing ones, it's implied by the definition of "fiction".

>>96088346
>Physics is just assumed to cover everything.
By people who fell in a midwit trap.

>He keeps using the same words
Because you have yet to counter them.

>and he keeps using the same gif.
Surprisingly not me, somehow just don't "get" reaction images.

>>96088382
>You can’t just say he’s wrong when he’s literally not wrong.
He's only "right" because he asserts a body of highly atypical definitions that preclude the oppositions' stances on almost anything. It's a convoluted mess of a semantic argument that refuses to recognize itself as one.

>You’re going up against the entire scientific community at this point if you’re assuming that physics isn’t the All.
No, we're only going up against the subset of the scientific community that has forgotten the boundaries of their premises, largely because education on such dependencies of science are not required to do it.

>>96088430
So what's physics's explanation for why your mother doesn't love you?

>>96087243
Why would they?
They want this thread here.

>>96086465 (OP)
>How does this affect your games?
Remarkably little, just like any autistic screeching.

>>96088448
Because never once has any of them ever actually talked about a traditional game, and it's clear they never will, and they've been spamming this shit for four days now.

Like, fuck, one person actually gave them a fucking opening, right fucking there, >>96088323 and see how they're still ignoring it in favor of arguing semantics.

Bottom line, shit's off-topic, and the mods refuse to get off their fat tranny asses to do anything about it, so fuck these autists.

>>96088432
So you want them to go away because they’re using logic to point something out, specifically something that upsets you.

>>96088474
This is a board for traditional games, not for sperging over one's own misunderstanding of /x/ shit

>>96086465 (OP)
If magic is just a force or energy source than yeah get fucked it's just extra physics.

Real magic was petitioning gods to help you & tricking demons to aid you. If your magic is 100% transactional & relies on the whims of powerful beings instead of a autonomous input/output machine you suddenly get "magic" magic again.

It's not that hard

>>96088433
>No he was not
Yes he was.
>He was merely a very smart man
>merely
Lol. You really hate scientists.

>By people who fell in a midwit trap.
Lol. Assuming existence exists isn’t being a midwit.

>It is the branch of philosophy studying the nature and scope of knowledge.
Cool. Natural philosophy won out. There is no better alternative.

>Yes it is
No it isn’t. Science plays with absolute simplicities. Causality. There is nothing simpler than that. You can’t even remove science from anything, everything. It will always be there.

>being that it is literally the field of "how things are known"
And how things are known is a science. The alternative is just assuming things. Science is external observation, or outside verification. The alternative to that is just mysticism, or thinking things without externally verifying them. Isaac Newton was a natural mystic who deep down knew how the world worked, but he still had to prove it.

>>96088471
I ignored him because he mentioned Exalted. A cringe game for edgy teens. Cry more, you edgy teen.

>>96086465 (OP)
Good lord it pisses me off to know end how people talk about "the science."

>>96088508
>Real magic was petitioning gods to help you & tricking demons to aid you. If your magic is 100% transactional & relies on the whims of powerful beings instead of an autonomous input/output machine you suddenly get "magic" magic again.

Aliens. Aliens also built the magic-machine.

>>96088534
Then talk about a different game. Any game. Better than going "herpaderp magic is science" like you're some kind of Rick Sanchez fanboy.

>>96088535
Because it pisses you off right? You hate how the world works, eh? You’re no better than theists, and theists and atheists are both stuck on their respective sides of the same goddamn coin.

>>96088557
Any game you give me can be deconstructed. There isn’t a single piece of fiction out there that can claim it’s magic isn’t physics without coming across as disingenuous regarding reality.

>>96088575
I dare you to name an actual game where that's the case, Rick

In the past 24 hours the board has been subject to at least two Discord raids and several off-topic (traditional games, anyone?) bait threads. So why don't our benevolent janitor overlords do anything? It's not incompetence or even laziness, its because they want the board to die. They're more likely to ban you for saying something about the obvious underage posting and tourism than for shitting up the board with obvious trolling

>>96086499
fpbp

>>96088433
>He's only "right" because he asserts a body of highly atypical definitions that preclude the oppositions' stances on almost anything. It's a convoluted mess of a semantic argument that refuses to recognize itself as one.
Listen. To 99.99% of scientists, nature and physics and existence are one and the same. That’s all there is to it. You’re not a fan of that position, or outlook, I get it, but you’re not going to change their minds. You’re the equivalent of a religious person who, no matter what, believes that Noah’s ark was physically possible. It wasn’t. It couldn’t be. But no amount of physical evidence will change your mind.

You trade believing in the impossible in real life for believing in the impossible in the fictional. You’re part religious.

>>96088586
>using basic common sense now means you’re a redditor
You are actually fucked in the head

ITT detractors of science thinking they’re smarter than Einstein

>>96088624
>Goes for the ad hominem because he can't name a game to back up his fat fingers
I accept your concession

>>96088635
They're a whole lot smarter than OP. Though a five year old can achieve the same hing

>>96088557
>>96088586
>Hey did you know that you can see the moon during the day-
>Shut up Rick, go back to plebbit, also you can’t see the moon during the day, and you don’t know how to use that word
This just means you hate coming across someone more knowledgeable than you.

>>96088644
What? I’m the one who asked YOU to give me a game where magic isn’t physics. You can’t do it. Using basic logic it’s fucking impossible.

Your argumentative stance is increasingly immature. You’re probably underage. Are you?

>>96087243
Just report it and hide it.

>>96088395
>Yes it is.
The cosmologists would have rather poor words to say to you about claiming the universe has no beginning, as would be necessary for conservation of mass to continue infinitely far into the past.

>>96088415
>Our observed laws and theories of physics =|= the physical reality that is physics
The study of a thing is not the thing itself, and "physics" is overwhelmingly defined as the former. Unless you disagree with the Encyclopedia Britannica, of course.

>>96088430
>The fact is, physics is the all absorbing field of science that involves all other sciences.
But "science" is not all-encompassing in all logically-consistent worlds, merely proving absurdly successful in ours. When you keep in mind the particulars that make it successful, it's trivial to propose counterfactuals where some are demonstrably false to make the limits relevant.

>>96088515
>Yes he was.
By what authority?

>Assuming existence exists isn’t being a midwit.
"Physics" and "existence" are not synonymous, and your prescription that they must be is invalid to etymology.

>Cool. Natural philosophy won out. There is no better alternative.
Natural philosophy didn't "win out" because they're not alternatives to eachother in the first place. Epistemology is what created the empirical approach to natural philosophy that led to science as we know it today, and continues to shape research methodologies independently of scientists.

>Science plays with absolute simplicities.
According to you. According to the people who actually do it, it's a clusterfuck because fundamental forces DON'T reduce neatly and getting anywhere requires incredibly complex measuring equipment.

>And how things are known is a science.
No, it's a philosophy, specifically Epistemology. That's what the word means.

>>96088676
>give me a game where magic isn’t physics
Legend of the Five Rings

>>96088687
>The cosmologists would have rather poor words to say to you about claiming the universe has no beginning
Except I didn’t imply this. Claiming magic isn’t physics is claiming magic has no beginning. It’s not part of causality. That is absurd. You’re attempting to flip your own failing arguments on to me for some dumb reason.

>>96088624
>using basic common sense now means you’re a redditor
No, being an obnoxious "I'm so smrt, s-m-r-t!" shitspammer means you're a redditor.

>>96088575
>You hate how the world works, eh?
I hate totalizing midwits who insist on shoving it into willful counterfactuals who's internals work differently.

>Any game you give me can be deconstructed.
Doesn't mean the deconstruction is valid.

>There isn’t a single piece of fiction out there that can claim it’s magic isn’t physics without coming across as disingenuous regarding reality.
Regarding your totalizing bullshit assumptions of the meanings of the words "magic", "physics", and "reality".

>>96088612
>To 99.99% of scientists, nature and physics and existence are one and the same.
According to what? Pew Research gives a third of them believing in God as of 2009, which is quite the divergence from your constructions that prescribe synonymy of the three words. Which remains invalid to linguistics, because definitions are descriptive.

>You trade believing in the impossible in real life for believing in the impossible in the fictional.
No, I simply insist that they are separate categories with no bearing on eachother, as opposed to you insisting the impossible cannot be even in fiction to the point of asserting conservation laws copping out to "other dimensions" in counterfactuals explicitly excluding them.

>>96088635
Denying Einstein's authority in fields distant from his work is not claiming to be smarter than him, merely better-founded in subjects he was no influence on.

>>96088676
>I’m the one who asked YOU to give me a game where magic isn’t physics. You can’t do it. Using basic logic it’s fucking impossible.
I refuse to do it because your only basis for its relevance is your bullshit semantic argument.

>>96088714
>Except I didn’t imply this.
You did because what you replied with that to continued the statement with "What physics caused the universe to exist?".

>>96088714
>Claiming magic isn’t physics is claiming magic has no beginning.
No, it's claiming that magic is separate from the empirical reduction methodology.

>>96088687
>The study of a thing is not the thing itself
Science means knowledge or information in its Latin origins. There is knowledge or information everywhere. If it exists, there will be information to it.

Again, not even Einstein saw science as something so one-sided. Science is every fucking where.

>>96086465 (OP)
>Technocracy posting?

>>96088739
Repeating basic information means you’re le smart now? Just how threatened by information are you? Are you mad that you did know what science was, or is, for so long? Are you threatened by the possibility that you’re actually a moron?

>>96088842
Circular logic.

>>96088687
>According to you. According to the people who actually do it, it's a clusterfuck because fundamental forces DON'T reduce neatly and getting anywhere requires incredibly complex measuring equipment.

Thinking science is inherently complex is hilarious. You do science a disservice by thinking this way.

— "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" –Albert Einstein
— “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” –Albert Einstein

The scientific method is painfully simple. It’s quite literally “fuck around, find out”. Science is a wheel of observation-theory.

It sounds like you don’t want this level of simplicity because it assimilates your own notions of magic. Is a fireball spell repeatable? Then it’s science/physics. It has causality to it.

>>96088909
"A pop tart is a sandwich"

>>96088687
>But "science" is not all-encompassing in all logically-consistent worlds
It actually is. It IS logic. You can’t even make a fiction without math. It cannot be done.

>By what authority?
Him btfo’ing Bohr. Him being the one to see how everything connects. Matter is frozen light/energy. Nothing can truly be created or destroyed. How poetic.

>"Physics" and "existence" are not synonymous
D’aw. Whatever you say, kiddo. Keep being adorable.

>Natural philosophy didn't "win out"
Of course it did. The 21st century says hi.

>According to you.
Nah, according to geniuses who can see how everything connects. “The theory of everything” is the holy grail of science. It is absolutely overwhelmingly simple, the idea that science is just repeatability, and all the nuances that go with it (not everything repeatable reproduces the same result — this is the replication crisis in real time).

>No, it's a philosophy, specifically Epistemology. That's what the word means.
Science has (natural) philosophy you dimwit. Science comes from natural philosophy. They are one and the same. Yes, it’s the philosophy that won out. The alternatives aren’t there.

>>96088702
Does it happen in their setting? Then it’s physics. Try again.

>>96088883
Physics IS circular logic you moron. The wheel. The mind that pokes at physics is first formed by physics.

>>96088960
"A choco taco is a sandwich"

>>96088958
People are still arguing if a hotdog is a sandwich, yes. Being “sandwiched” just means you’re getting squeezed by two things at this point.

>>96088986
Gibraltar is a sandwich

>>96088973
>Does it happen in their setting? Then it’s physics.
Not only have you failed to answer the question, you have failed to properly assert your thesis from the basis of how it works in the game. So fuck you, you lose.

>>96088809
>No, it's claiming that magic is separate from the empirical reduction methodology.
It can’t be. If it appears in our three dimensions it is automatically a part of physics, or causality. The empirical method is itself supported by causality. You can technically argue that science is causality itself, since there are processes to everything, and science is itself also a process, aiming to figure out processes.

You need to start thinking more holistically.

>>96088809
>I hate totalizing midwits who insist on shoving it into willful counterfactuals whose internals work differently.
Your counterfactuals aren’t actually true counters though. Magic exists within the confines of its respective fiction, meaning it is by default physics of some kind. You can’t just say a fireball suddenly isn’t fire.

>>96088809
>According to what?
According to physics. Physicists don’t believe in the supernatural.

>>96089026
Fireball works in a vacuum though. So it's observably and demonstrably not fire.

>>96089005
No. You claimed it’s not physics. Except it exists within its setting. If it exists, it is physics. No amount of cry baby screeching will change that.

>>96088986
Poptarts, choco tacos, and hotdogs are only squeezed by one thing, so they aren't sandwiches.

>>96088809
>I refuse to do it
You refuse to do it because you know you will lose. Every time. This is why you’re wasting your time arguing about this shit. Because you’re suffering a bout of cognitive dissonance and you don’t know how to process it.

I remember being like you once. I remember being angry against the idea that something explicitly magical may or may not be seen as magical.

>>96089048
The fact you had to resort to begging the question is proof you're full of shit. Explain how magic works in L5R, and then show us how it falls under physics as we understand it.

>>96089048
>if it exists, it's physics
So the Dreamtime oral tradition of Australian Aborigines is physics? It exists, so it must be physics.

>>96089042
No. It’s absolutely fire. You can’t just say fire suddenly isn’t fire.

>>96089065
They’re being squeezed by two sides of something. Do you always argue for the sake of arguing? Do you have any friends at all? Do you struggle socializing?

>>96088854
Repeating it over and over while assuming everyone else disagrees? You're litterally creating your own opponents just because you're so obnoxious you trigger instinctive shitposting response.

>Hey guys, did you know MAGIC is SCIENCE?
Yeah, sure, we don't care.
>But did you KNOW that MAGIC is SCIENCE?
Yeah, sure, whatever floats your boat
>But but guys, you don't get it, MAGIC is SCIENCE!
We get it, you're not original.
>Don't you CARE that MAGIC is SCIENCE?
Nope, pretty good here, throwing fireballs and shit
>But your fireball isn't MAGICAL! It's SCIENTIFIC!
You know what,
>300 replies and 65 images omitted. Click here to view.

if that's your trolling strategy, good for you, people are eating it.

>>96089085
Except how am I full of shit when I’m always right?

>Explain how magic works in L5R, and then show us how it falls under physics as we understand it.
It exists in three dimensions. It’s physics.

>>96088842
>Science means knowledge or information in its Latin origins.
Which is not July 2025 English, and a self-contradictory interpretation given the intermediate stages of synonymy with "Natural Philosophy".

>Again, not even Einstein saw science as something so one-sided.
Einstein seeing science so broadly is him holding an outlier position, much as he was proven wrong on his loathing of quantum physics.

>>96088909
>The scientific method is painfully simple. It’s quite literally “fuck around, find out”.
This discarding of detail loses the explanatory power. There's a reason the take-off so long post-dates the advent of Empiricism.

>It sounds like you don’t want this level of simplicity because it assimilates your own notions of magic.
No, it's because it leaves "science" far too shallow to explain the wild acceleration of human progress.

>>96088960
>It actually is. It IS logic.
Nope. Argumentum Ad Populum is perfectly valid, and the legions of screeching retards say they're different things.

>You can’t even make a fiction without math.
Which does not entail the whole of your mass of totalizing bullshit.

>Him btfo’ing Bohr.
The man who's complementarity is at the root of most of quantum physics? The man who is actually recognized for contributions to philosophy to the point he's identified more for that than physics?

>Of course it did. The 21st century says hi.
The point is that they weren't in competition in the first place.

>Nah, according to geniuses who can see how everything connects.
Who assume it. It is not proven. Hence why the "Theory of Everything" remains a goal, not an achievement. Until it is achieved, it is merely an assumption that the reduction will reach a limit.

>Science has (natural) philosophy you dimwit. Science comes from natural philosophy. They are one and the same.
And remain downstream from Epistemology defining their logical approaches, no matter how much you attempt to pull up the ladder.

>>96089086
Yes. If ghosts existed, they’re either three dimensional farts or higher dimensional somethings.

The dreamscape is also just brain chemistry by the way. There’s always going to be scientific information to something, even if we can’t scientifically assess it.

>>96089105
>Fuck, I can't actually prove my claim for this game I've clearly never played, shit, better resort to a complete non-sequitur, haha I win!
I accept your concession

>>96089091
>you can't say fire isn't fire
Fire is combustion by definition. If it's not combustion, it's not fire. Combustion is a process that requires combustible gases and does not function in a vacuum. Fireball works in a vacuum and is therefore not combustion. It is therefore not fire.

It's fucking basic.

>>96086734
>Trying to find things out and debating topics rather than just mindlessly following a book written by stupid goat fuckers means science is a religion.

>>96089096
Apparently he's been doing it for years to the point he's paranoid about people calling hm "wonderfag", so on some level it's no longer trolliing.

>>96089108
>Which is not July 2025 English, and a self-contradictory interpretation given the intermediate stages of synonymy with "Natural Philosophy".
Nope. Science aims to figure out knowledge, information bases. There is information everywhere. The philosophy of science is that everything is natural.

>Einstein seeing science so broadly is him holding an outlier position
Nope. Most physicists see physics as an everywhere field.

>No, it's because it leaves "science" far too shallow to explain the wild acceleration of human progress.
Lol. You’re funny. All big things have small beginnings. ;^)

>Nope.
Yup. Math is raw logic, and is the tongue of science. Empiricism is a search for truth, and logic, using logic. Deal with it.

>Which does not entail the whole of your mass of totalizing bullshit.
Of course it does. There is nothing more simple or pure than math. It goes along with everything. It cannot be removed from anything.

>The man whose complementarity is at the root of most of quantum physics?
Bohr believed something can come from nothing. He was smart but foolish. Most physicists who aren’t stupid usually take Einstein’s side in the debate.

>Who assume it. It is not proven.
Physics is proven. Existence exists. We know that there is a background to it, that supports it all. You can’t avoid it. It all meets in the end. Psychology is applied biology is applied chemistry is applied physics is applied metaphysics.

>And remain downstream from Epistemology defining their logical approaches, no matter how much you attempt to pull up the ladder.
Epistemology has no better alternative, and is essentially a movement of cope in the face of science.

When Steven Hawking said “philosophy is dead”, he had a point. Philosophy does survive, but within the realm of nature.

>>96089007
>If it appears in our three dimensions it is automatically a part of physics
According to your definition of physics that I refuse to use. Stop your semantic argument and engage with priors not your own.

>The empirical method is itself supported by causality.
No, it's supported by the specific assumption that causality is bounded to our senses. Over in cosmology there's rather large problems stemming from this assumption being poor.

>You can technically argue that science is causality itself
And if I refuse to your argument doesn't apply.

>since there are processes to everything, and science is itself also a process
Fallacious use of transitive property.

>You need to start thinking more holistically.
No, I'd like to continue being able to understand where the ideas of modernity came from.

>>96089026
>Your counterfactuals aren’t actually true counters though.
They are, you just refuse to engage with the terms of them.

>Magic exists within the confines of its respective fiction, meaning it is by default physics of some kind.
According to your definition that I refuse to use. Cease asserting your semantic argument and engage on terms not your own.

>>96089037
>Physicists don’t believe in the supernatural.
There seems to be a pretty large chunk who do:
>https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Sure, it's LESS than the general population, but not the overwhelming majority your argument relies on.

>>96089048
>If it exists, it is physics.
According to your retarded jargon. Your semantic argument is rejected, consult dictionaries for what words mean.

>>96089075
>You refuse to do it because you know you will lose.
No, I directly stated why I refuse to do it: Because I refuse the reasoning you give for why it's at all relevant. I reject your priors, deal with mine.

>>96089133
Science is absolutely a religion. Point out that IQ (biological variance) is a fact and you will be silenced and branded a witch.

>>96089166
Nah. It shows that the guy denying that wonder has anything to do with magic is just a rampant and chronic idiot who has zero social life skills so he stays on here.

It’s just sad.

>>96089166
>Trolling turns to schizo obsession
Many such cases.

>>96089192
>There seems to be a pretty large chunk who do:
Again, half of the scientific community can’t even agree on whether sex is binary or not.

>No, I directly stated why I refuse to do it: Because I refuse the reasoning you give for why it's at all relevant. I reject your priors, deal with mine.
So you can’t do it. Okay. My logic cancels out yours, is all you’re admitting.

What is it about the subject of magic that attracts so many autistic people?

I have an unscientific theory that because autists don't have social skills they tend to latch onto "intelligence" (or trivia collecting confused for intelligence) as their main source of self-esteem, and the fantasy wizard archetype is the power fantasy of a self-sufficient genius, without the collaborative aspect of real world science and engineering that autists struggle with.

>>96089200
What’s being obsessive is ranting for years that magic and religion has nothing to do with wonder or mystery.

He doesn’t even know what magic and religion is, or what causes it.

He is an overly robotic autist who only sees things in redundantly packaged little boxes. He cannot see how magic and miracles overlap to the point where they are the same.

>>96089216
Well, it’s a callback to religion. “My magic is better than your magic” is no different from “my religion and god is better than your religion and god”.

OP is right in that. It’s inherently inconsistent, and any attempt at making it consistent only proves his point, since no one will objectively agree on it.

Magic IS the domain of psychology, not phenomena. This point is making above autists lose their minds, though. They’re not even capable of understanding physics.

>>96089200
Indeed, as wonderfag himself >>96089198 proves almost immediately

>>96089192
>No
Yes. The repetition of the scientific method would not work without causality, or space(time).

You just bluntly saying “No” shows that you only want to argue for the sake of arguing, and you don’t actually think before you post.

I’m sorry for damaging your brain this much. I’m not doing it on purpose. I’m just trying to explain things to you.

>>96089252
How is he wrong? Were you in a coma during Covid? People were becoming literal Nazis in mentality. “How DARE you question the science!”. Fauci was their high priest. A legit fucking criminal. And you DO get silenced or even cancelled if you don’t use the words trannies want you to use (sort of like how the autist insists that magic be magic no matter what).

>>96089198
>Point out that IQ (biological variance) is a fact and you will be silenced and branded a witch.
There is no evidence for IQ and you’re a racist for supporting it

>>96089198
Only retarded people make a big deal about IQ. Smart people just work to get shit done.

>>96089289
You really think biological variance stops once it reaches the brain?

Let’s take the politics out of it and go back to the basics of biology.

Take two populations of the same species. Not humans- let’s say rabbits.

Isolate them genetically for a significant period (usually such isolation is caused by geography but it doesn’t matter why so long as interbreeding is minimal and is over enough generations for natural selection and genetic drift to occur).

Will there be a divergence of traits between the two populations?

The answer is yes, of course. Some traits will diverge becasue of natural selection, some because of sexual selection and some just becasue of genetic drift.

After all that is how evolution works - it simply must be the case.

Evolution isn’t just about when two populations diverge so greatly that a new species or sub-species forms - it’ happening daily for all sorts of traits and characteristics of an animal.

And the traits that most directly impact on fitness will tend to be subject to strong selection.

So wind it back to humans.

Have certain populations of humans being genetically isolated from each other for many generations?

Yes. We tend to call them ethnicities.

Will their traits vary as between population groups?

Yes. Hair type, blood group, eye colour, facial features, ability to digest certain foods, average height, body shape etc. All these traits demonstrably differ between ethnic groups.

Is intelligence a trait of humans that will likewise vary?

You can logically only choose one answer:

A) Yes - and as intelligence is one of a human’s key traits it is likely to be selected for quite strongly in different environments and communities,

B) No - intelligence is a special trait - alone amongst all traits it’s not possible for it to vary between groups at all - all groups of human beings have the same average intelligence.

If you pick B fine, but don’t expect to pass a biology class any time soon.

>>96089091
>You can’t just say fire suddenly isn’t fire.
It's trivial to propose a hypothetical conditioned on a thing that meets many observable properties of fire yet shares no internal functions with it.

>>96089105
>Except how am I full of shit when I’m always right?
Only because you precondition the argument on priors that exclude the opposition and refuse to address theirs in favor of reasserting your own.

>It exists in three dimensions. It’s physics.
Semantic argument rejected, consult Encyclopedia Britannica for the definition of "physics" and "science" in use:
>physics, science that deals with the structure of matter and the interactions between the fundamental constituents of the observable universe.
>science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.
Notice how "physics" is a subset of "science", and so the constraints of "the physical world", "unbiased observations", and "systematic experimentation" carry over.

>>96089119
>If ghosts existed, they’re either three dimensional farts or higher dimensional somethings.
Their fundamental premise is dualistic personhood, you do not GET to define them out of their paradigm into yours in a CONDITIONAL HYPOTHETICAL.

>>96089299
The only people who make a big deal out of IQ are the people being attacked by the people who deny that IQ is real.

Like, you can take issue with the testing, but not the biological reality, or what it is attempting to measure.

IQ tests only asses intelligences based on reaction times and memory. It is the easiest *type* of intelligence to measure.

Slower and more ponderous thinkers will suffer, while artistic or rhythmic IQs are impossible to test for reasons that are all too obvious.

>>96089268
Non-sequiter. At any rate, the fact /tg/ archives bring up a "wonderfag" going back years and he's still trying to troll /tg/ is really pathetic. I can understand doing it a few months, maybe even a year or so. Butt this long is definitely mental illness by now. Whether it's the original or a troll trying to keep his legacy alive, it's time to stop. The joke's stopped being funny and is just concerning that it's still being carried on this long.

>>96089320
>Semantic argument rejected
Lol.
>consult Encyclopedia Britannica for the definition of "physics" and "science" in use
Okay.

>>physics, science that deals with the structure of matter and the interactions between the fundamental constituents of the observable universe.
>>science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.
So it agrees with me. Your brain is fucking warped.

>Notice how "physics" is a subset of "science",
There’s no larger science than physics, so all other sciences are subsets of physics. Psychology is applied biology which is applied chemistry which is applied physics. You’re not getting this. It’s not a fucking pie slice scenario. God damn.

> and so the constraints of "the physical world", "unbiased observations", and "systematic experimentation" carry over.
Lol. Yeah, physics is unbiased, and it’s why the disenchantment narrative is even a thing. Once it’s understood enough it’s no longer magic. Not unless you still consider it to be.

>>96089186
>Science aims to figure out knowledge, information bases.
According to a specific framework with pre-conditions for applicability.

>The philosophy of science is that everything is natural.
No, term's established use is something else:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

>Most physicists see physics as an everywhere field.
Citation remains needed.

>All big things have small beginnings. ;^)
And the break-point for any reasonable expectation of the big thing is AFTER your reduction.

>Math is raw logic
No, that's formal logic, mathematics is tangential to that somewhere around set theory.

>Empiricism is a search for truth, and logic, using logic
No, it's the theory that knowledge comes primarily from senses. Observations are REQUIRED, something Einstein's thought-experiments CANNOT do.

>There is nothing more simple or pure than math.
Not according to the people who took hundreds of pages to prove 1+1=2. Fuck's sake, set theory doesn't even have an agreed set of axioms!

>Bohr believed something can come from nothing.
And? You'll find it's quite the common opinion in cosmology, makes for quite entertaining mental gymnastics reconciling observations with the Big Bang.

>We know that there is a background to it, that supports it all. You can’t avoid it. It all meets in the end.
Not until we actually acquire a Theory of Everything, until then it's just an assumption.

>Epistemology has no better alternative, and is essentially a movement of cope in the face of science.
Again with the ladder-pulling that breaks the ability to understand where your own position comes from...

>>96089343
>At any rate, the fact /tg/ archives bring up a "wonderfag" going back years and he's still trying to troll /tg/ is really pathetic.

Nah. What’s pathetic is being in denial about the recipe for magic for so long that any magic system that makes use of mystery or wonder is met with “oh ew it’s a wonderfag magic system”, and he does this to people who aren’t OP.

You’re flipping around the schizophrenic card pretending he’s not the schizophrenic one in the equation. He’s mentally ill and you’re supporting his mental illness.

>>96089391
>confusing the philosophy of science for natural philosophy
Please stop being fucking retarded
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

>>96089336
If you used your brain for once and looked at the people who are getting stuff done in areas like science you will see none of them are talking about how high their IQ is. It's just retarded people like you who think that IQ matter that much in how smart someone is,

>>96089268
>wonderfag is a victim of ivermectin-induced brainrot
It all makes sense now.

>>96089409
>Nah. What’s pathetic is
That he's been at this for four days and several years straight, yes.
> about the recipe for magic
Legitimately fuck off, OP. Go to fucking /x/ if you want to talk about your schizophrenic rants on magic. We're talking about traditional games here, and the one single time you had to prove your theories had anything relating to magic you fucking botched it by straight up ducking the question like a coward.

>>96089391
>Citation remains needed.
Physics deals with the observable universe. How are you not parsing this? You are actually 80IQ.

>No, that's formal logic, mathematics is tangential to that somewhere around set theory.
Raw, formal, pure logic. Yes. It cannot be removed from anything. It IS logic.

>No, it's the theory that knowledge comes primarily from senses. Observations are REQUIRED, something Einstein's thought-experiments CANNOT do.
Thanks for agreeing with me that it’s the search for truth. Again you’re arguing for the sake of arguing. “No, the sky isn’t blue, it’s blue!”. Fucking insect.

>Not according to the people who took hundreds of pages to prove 1+1=2.
Math is so pure and so simple it cannot even be a science, some argue. “One plus one always equals two”. “Okay show me your theory”. “What?” “What?”.

You denying the purity of math is just gross by the way. It’s the language of the universe.

>And? You'll find it's quite the common opinion in cosmology
It’s actually heretical to causality theory.

>Not until we actually acquire a Theory of Everything, until then it's just an assumption.
The assumption is that there’s a framework for existence. The theory is our ability to explain that framework. Yes there is a hypothetical theory to everything.

>>96089425
They only ever talk about IQ because people deny that biology is real. You only ever get mad because you think the people that believe in IQ believe themselves superior to you.

This is projection.

>>96089437
>Not until we actually acquire a Theory of Everything, until then it's just an assumption.
you’re starting to sound insane

>Legitimately fuck off, OP.
So you’re magic that there’s logic even to magic. There’s even logic to something being seen as supernatural.

>>96089105
It technically exists in 0 dimensions since fictional settings aren't real. It's magic.
That's what you sound like, you sperg

>>96089214
>Again, half of the scientific community can’t even agree on whether sex is binary or not.
So do they agree with you on your premises as you keep claiming despite the evidence provided to the contrary, or are you making a No True Scotsman argument that any who don't aren't "real" scientists?

>My logic cancels out yours, is all you’re admitting.
No, I'm saying your logic does not even vaguely associate with mine because it's totalizing midwitery that refuses any possibility of category separation between the facts of our reality and the internals of a fictional other-world.

>>96089227
>What’s being obsessive is ranting for years that magic and religion has nothing to do with wonder or mystery.
Railing against one who demands they be inseparable to the point of synonymy, rather.

>He cannot see how magic and miracles overlap to the point where they are the same.
They can overlap without being the same. You have yet to explain why words cannot have some meanings overlap yet remain separate due to others that don't.

>>96089241
>Magic IS the domain of psychology, not phenomena.
Not according to most use on /tg/, which is all that is required for your prescribed definition to be wrong.

>>96089256
>The repetition of the scientific method would not work without causality, or space(time).
It also wouldn't work if the sense-able were an unavoidably incomplete subset of causation, no matter how much you insist "empiricism" is either not required or means something it doesn't.

>>96089383
>So it agrees with me. Your brain is fucking warped.
No it does not, because "systematic experimentation" directly contradicts your "fuck around/find out" reduction.

>It’s not a fucking pie slice scenario.
It doesn't need to be mutually-exclusive pie-slices for the subsets to be important distinctions.

>Once it’s understood enough it’s no longer magic.
Only according to your jargon that we refuse.

>>96089320
>Notice how "physics" is a subset of "science"
It’s not. It’s the largest science. Science and physics are more or less the same.

>>96086465 (OP)
How does this affect yours?

>>96089513
>It technically exists in 0 dimensions since fictional settings aren't real
Yes, fiction isn’t real, but within the fiction things are assumed to be real, and thus you can apply logic inside a fiction.

Saying “magic isn’t real” or “fiction isn’t real” is a cope if you assume it gives you the ability to do whatever you want. But, fiction isn’t omnipotent. Again, you can’t even make a fiction lacking math, 1s and 0s. It cannot be done.

>>96089509
>>Not until we actually acquire a Theory of Everything, until then it's just an assumption.
...I wasn't even fucking talking about that, OP. Jesus christ. I...I think you may legitimately be hallucinating.

>>96089485
If you are too retarded to even read short posts then you should probably leave /tg/ as this hobby is clearly not for you.

>>96086520
How does this affect the games you're currently running?

>>96089539
You can't even explain how the fuck magic works within one named setting, how the fuck do you think you have any authority to speak on anything?

>>96086587
How does this affect the games you're currently running?

>>96089516
>No, I'm saying your logic does not even vaguely associate with mine
Probably because you deny logic altogether.

>They can overlap without being the same.
All the uniqueness found in miracles can be found in magic, and vice versa.

>>96086695
Right, which is what "whatever the fuck" means, you fucking retard. What did you think it meant?

>>96089540
Stop being so cringe dramatic, Sonichu cum eater.

>>96089343
I'm more concerned about the fact that people are still taking the bait.

>>96089555
Because how a magic system works is irrelevant to it existing within the confines of its setting. If it exists, it is physics. The alternative is arguing that a fireball isn’t made up of fire or kinetic energy.

You can’t win this. You can’t even give me an example of a magic system that isn’t physics. Why? Because it’s impossible. That’s the whole point. It can’t be done. At all. If it takes place in three dimensions, it is causality, physics, full stop.

>>96089578
He's been non-stop spamming this thread the entire time like he's been trying to make it a permanent fixture. And invades other threads if nobody bothers taking his bait. He doesn't bait so much as he runs over and shits on people's cars till they tell him to fuck off.

>>96089578
>common sense is bait
>if I lose the argument it’s because it’s bait
Never change 4chan

>>96086739
No it doesn't and no they aren't.

>>96089591
>Because how a magic system works is irrelevant to it existing within the confines of its setting
>the entire point of this discussion is irrelevant to this discussion

>>96089591
>If it exists, it is physics.
Not true
> The alternative is arguing that a fireball isn’t made up of fire or kinetic energy.
It's not.
That's why as per the rules, the ability for a fireball to ignite things is arbitrarily based on if an object is being worn or carried by a 'creature' ( good luck defining what a 'creature' is in-setting, because that's entirely a metagame conceit. )

>>96089421
>Please stop being fucking retarded
The term "philosophy of science" was in fact used for something that is not the established meaning of the term. Deflecting to a different term is invalid.

>>96089473
>Physics deals with the observable universe.
Still not citing "most physicists" seeing it as absolutely all-encompassing the way you do.

>Raw, formal, pure logic. Yes. It cannot be removed from anything. It IS logic.
No it is not. Read at least summaries of the actually respected academic material on the matter.

>Thanks for agreeing with me that it’s the search for truth.
I'm not agreeing with you, "primarily from senses" is a qualifier that constrains the applicability of things contingent on empiricism, thus creating a hypothetically valid even if non-extant out-group.

>Math is so pure and so simple it cannot even be a science, some argue.
Who?

>You denying the purity of math is just gross by the way. It’s the language of the universe.
According to mathematicians and midwits sucked into their midwit failures. The universe doesn't care, and is under no obligation to make sense.

>It’s actually heretical to causality theory.
Which is a constraint on the beliefs of cosmologists how, exactly?

>The assumption is that there’s a framework for existence.
A Theory of Everything is the more particular assumption that there is a singular framework for all things that exist. It takes only one discontinuity for this to be false, which remains a possibility so long as such a framework is not discovered.

>Yes there is a hypothetical theory to everything.
And as long as it's just a hypothosis it's irrelevant fart-sniffing.

>>96089513
Technically it exists at the absurdly high dimensionality of language.

>>96089540
I copy pasted the wrong greentext, calm down.

Here:
>That he's been at this for four days and several years straight, yes.
You’re starting to sound insane (if you really think it’s the same person telling you that magic is just psychology)

>>96089606
Nah. It’s funny. If morons can’t accept that physics means physical reality then OP should continue blowing out your assholes.

>>96089618
What’s retarded is you thinking something transpiring within our three dimensions somehow isn’t physics, or a part of causality.

All you’re doing is spamming reaction images and resorting to insults because you’re losing this argument.

Scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". This use of the term scientism has two senses:

-The improper use of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.

-"The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry", or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience". Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."

The term scientism is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism with respect to all topics of human knowledge.

Hmm, I wonder who this could refer too?

>>96089625
Too late, man. We can't have a discussion until you get back on your meds. Sorry.

>>96089623
>Not true
It is observable? Something caused it. It’s that simple, moron.
>It's not.
Yes it is. Saying a fireball isn’t a part of physics is essentially saying it’s not fire. You’ve made a massive blunder.

>>96089591
your entire argument is “we dont fully understand physics therefor any fictional magic must be based in physics” like a fucking retard

>>96089635
Anon, it's legitimately a simple question.
>"How does magic function in Legend of the Five Rings?"
It's something you can find by picking up a book. And, no, going "physics" does not answer it. The word is not in any of the explanations.
Can you even do something as simple as picking up a book?

>>96089639
This is, like epistemology, a cope around how natural philosophy, aka science, won out. It’s basically being butthurt that science can deconstruct everything and proves materialism is absolute.

>>96086949
Clearly you're the one that can't do hypotheticals. Either aliens know everything or they don't. If they encounter something new, then they didn't know everything. QED.

>>96089650
Nope. It exists within three dimensions. It is causal. It is physics. Saying it’s not is more or less saying it doesn’t exist.
>b-but fiction isn’t supposed to be real
You’re intentionally missing the point then. Since within the bounds of fiction there is assumed to be three dimensions.

>>96089639
Reviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars in 2003, Gregory R. Peterson detected two main general themes:

-It is used to criticize a totalizing opinion of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true method to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
-It is used, often pejoratively, to denote violations by which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are applied inappropriately to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to term as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

The term scientism was popularized by F. A. Hayek, who defined it in 1942 as the "slavish imitation of the method and language of Science".

In 1979, Karl Popper defined scientism as "the aping of what is widely mistaken for the method of science".

In 2003, Mikael Stenmark proposed the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism. In the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, he wrote that, while the doctrines that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension).[37] According to Stenmark, the strongest form of scientism states that science does not have any boundaries and that all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor, with due time, will be dealt with and solved by science alone.

>>96089659
lol, devotee of scientism

>>96089653
Do a fireball isn’t made of fire? You keep dodging the question, because you know you will lose.

>>96089681
>Do a fireball isn’t made of fire?
Saar fireball saar saar bloody benchod fireball betch saar

>>96089681
Non-sequitur. I'm waiting.

>>96089669
>If they encounter something new, then they didn't know everything
That post agrees with you. The moron said the aliens “know everything” and then suddenly they don’t. He’s basically saying he wants magic to be something impossible to understand always. That’s fine. But it’s still hypothetically understandable if it exists, even within a fictional setting. There is science/information to anything and everything that exists.

>>96089645
> Saying a fireball isn’t a part of physics is essentially saying it’s not fire.
A D&D fireball spell isn't fire.
Again, it only does 'fire damage' ( a meta concept ) to 'creatures' (another meta concept ) and it only ignites things not being worn or carried by a 'creature'. It doesn't even do damage to non-creature objects. That's not how fire or explosions work.

>>96089696
Nope, that guy is the one who came up with the hypothetical is pretending as if he thinks it's stupid so we'll think he's someone else, and thus can attempt to fit in again.

>>96089688
>>96089691
See. You lose. The moment you accept that a fireball is made of fire is the moment you accept that magic is physics.
>>96089707
>A D&D fireball spell isn't fire.
Lolok. I accept your concession. You’ve cognitive dissonance. I am so powerful. I can’t believe I did this to your brain.

>>96089671
youre missing the point, lmao. our ignorance of the laws of physics is not some all encompassing evidence that magic is rooted in physics.

yes, its fiction is a perfectly valid argument. we dont have to argue within your arbitrary confines

>>96089709
Lol??? As long as you agree that the guy who came up with the hypothetical (the guy ITT denying that science is physics) is retarded I don’t really care.

>>96089713
100% irrelevant to my question. The properties of fireballs does not answer
>"How does magic function in Legend of the Five Rings?"
You lose. Fuck you.

>>96089713
>doesn't address any of the rules that determines fireball does not act like fire or an explosion
I accept your concession.

>>96089722
Stop pretending to be someone else. You're him and it's quite obvious.

>>96089522
>Science and physics are more or less the same.
They are not the same. Even if there is no aspect of science not contained in physics, which has no small controversy around it, the set of "physics" still does not contain "science" whereas the reverse is true.

>>96089539
>and thus you can apply logic inside a fiction.
But it definitionally must not fully align with real-life logic, otherwise it would not be fiction.

>>96089540
He thinks we're one samefag using wildly-different posting styles across different devices.

>>96089559
>Probably because you deny logic altogether.
Do you perchance know what an "axiom" is to understand that them differing results in the statement being perfectly valid?

>All the uniqueness found in miracles can be found in magic, and vice versa.
Not within the worldview that defined them separately. Refusing to address that worldview on its terms in favor of pushing yours on all possible contexts is not a valid mode of argument.

>>96089573
>What did you think it meant?
Not a constant "whatever the fuck" to which all use-cases can be responded to with a "but I don't think that's wondrous enough" the way you have consistently been using it.

>>96089591
>You can’t win this.
Only because you haven't even shown up to the actual subject in favor of stewing in your own effluvium.

>>96089625
>If morons can’t accept that physics means physical reality
It's not "morons", it's people who understand how to set aside modernity to approach archaic concepts, a routine necessity to wrap your head around fantasy fiction.

>>96089635
>What’s retarded is you thinking something transpiring within our three dimensions somehow isn’t physics
They're not our three dimensions. That's why it's fiction.

>>96089645
>It is observable? Something caused it.
"Physics" =/= "causality", and there is no obligation for causes to be observable.

>Saying a fireball isn’t a part of physics is essentially saying it’s not fire.
And?

>>96089719
>our ignorance of the laws of physics is not some all encompassing evidence that magic is rooted in physics.
Not the point. The point is for magic to happen at all, it needs to be within three dimensions of causality. Otherwise it’s not observable and it doesn’t exist. There is nothing to it.

>>96089730
lol

>>96089724
So you’re still saying that fire isn’t fire. You’re so argumentatively addled that you argue for something absolutely fucking retarded because you just HAVE to double down like an idiot.

>>96089732
theres an entire wildly popular franchise out there thats entire schtick is that the magical abilities are rooted outside of causality lmao

>>96089730
>"Physics" =/= "causality", and there is no obligation for causes to be observable.
Spacetime is a part of physics, and causality is space(time).

At this point it’s just sad how uneducated you are.

Also why do you keep assuming everyone is me?

>>96089744
I'm saying you're not answering my question, therefore I refuse to answer any of yours until you do. I'm not the one claiming that I can explain how magic systems work under the purview of physics, YOU are. Because in order to start, you have to demonstrate you know how the magic system is actually described functioning within my chosen example. Of which you've consistently failed to do, instead hoping to sidetrack me in an effort to avoid proving that you know nothing at all.

>>96089747
>theres an entire wildly popular franchise out there thats entire schtick is that the magical abilities are rooted outside of causality lmao
Metaphysics is still physics. Cope. If you think something comes from morning you are still stupid. The space time fabric could absolutely be embedded in something bigger the same way we’re all embedded in space time.

>>96089730
Do you ever think about why you always find yourself arguing against an entire thread at the same time?

>>96089713
Your "gotcha" would work better if anyone cared. You're standing on a proverbial table butt-naked, twirling your dick and throwing poop at everyone while everyone else is urging you to climb down from the table and stop making a fool out of yourself. We don't care if magic is wonderful, or physical, or whatever we're just telling you that you're a fucking retard because you are.

>>96089730
>They're not our three dimensions. That's why it's fiction.
So your characters can’t move then. Because they aren’t in three dimensions. Got it.

>It's not "morons", it's people who understand how to set aside modernity to approach archaic concepts, a routine necessity to wrap your head around fantasy fiction.
But you yourself hate archaic concepts since you keep claiming they historical ironies surrounding magic and religion “have no place” in games.

What a double standard.

>>96089773
>Metaphysics is still physics
it's not. that's why its called metaphysics and not physics

>>96089773
said setting literally covers your argument, it doesnt matter if you take every potentially permutation of reality, the form of magic cannot exist under any model of physics in any one of them.

i think youre the one coping that people arent buying your pseudointellectual schlock

>>96089766
Nope, you have to answer mine first. Bitch.

>>96089766
You don’t even need to provide an example. If your magic system exists within three dimensions, or makes use of three dimensions at all, it is a part of physics.

>>96089774
Because I'm right and everyone else is wrong, you dumb nigger.

>>96089791
no no, clearly the character who can turn a droplet of water into a black hole by breaking its surface tension with a rock is totally rooted in physics.

trust me bro, we dont understand everything. so it must be physical, and not magic. i am super smart.

>>96089791
Beyond-physics is still physics. Physics of the beyond. :^)

You hate existence. You think metaphysics wouldn’t exist because it’s not physics, lmao.

>>96089796
What? It’s still physics buddy. Saying metaphysics isn’t physics is like saying chemistry isn’t physics. D’oh!

>>96089797
I accept your concession.
>>96089802
That's not answering the question at all. You continue to embarrass yourself by the fact you can't even pick up a game manual or wiki page and copy+paste the text.

>>96089809
Yes, retard. Anything you can observe is physical.

>>96089818
what physics is it rooted in then retard

>>96089809
>clearly the character who can turn a droplet of water into a black hole by breaking its surface tension with a rock is totally rooted in physics.
Water is physics
Black holes / gravity are physics (borderline magic too since we don’t know how gravity works)
Rocks are physics

I guess gravity isn’t physics since we don’t know how it works

>>96089815
Nope, I accept yours. Bitch.

>>96089659
>This is, like epistemology, a cope around how natural philosophy, aka science, won out.
Epistemology is literally the cause of what you think "won out". It is operating at the layer of what logical approaches will gather knowledge, of which science is simply the successful case for matters observable.

>It’s basically being butthurt that science can deconstruct everything and proves materialism is absolute.
"Might", not "can". Until it has concluded in a Theory of Everything the contrary remains possible.

>>96089671
>Nope. It exists within three dimensions.
The standard D&D cosmology approximates to 5-7, depending on how you interpret it, with the "extra" beyond the standard three exhibiting irreducible qualitative differences and a whole extra brain-fuck of "nondimensional spaces" beside it. Plus the explicit nonsense of the Far Realm.

>>96089696
The hypothetical is pre-conditioned on a limited definition of physics. That you can only approach this as a paradox simply demonstrates your inability to apply any priors but your own in the fashion required to address conditional hypotheticals in general, let alone counterfactuals expressly declaring your priors incorrect.

>>96089760
>Spacetime is a part of physics, and causality is space(time).
Ordinal causalities independent of a time dimension are logically coherent, disproving your equivocation.

>Also why do you keep assuming everyone is me?
If your side can immediately dismiss a screenshot, I'm fine just not bothering to distinguish exact posters backing the same bullshit.

>>96089773
>If you think something comes from morning you are still stupid.
If you cannot even begin to conceptualize the contrary, it is you who is stupid.

>The space time fabric could absolutely be embedded in something bigger the same way we’re all embedded in space time.
And if there is a discontinuity irreducibly separating the meta-physical from the physical in most matters.

He’s right you know.

If it exists, it is physics/existence.
If it works, it is repeatable/science.

Magic can’t ever be removed from these.

>>96089814
>You hate existence. You think metaphysics wouldn’t exist because it’s not physics, lmao.
Holy shit the sheer arrogance and retardation.
>>96089802
>If your magic system exists within three dimensions, or makes use of three dimensions at all, it is a part of physics.
this outs you as a psuedointellectual
what are the these "three dimensions"

>>96089826
talk about missing the fucking point. if stamping your foot on the floor in x setting does nothing, but a chaacter repeats that exact same thing and it somehow resets the entire timeline, theres literally nothing about that thats rooted in physics.

trying to explain it as it must be physical is fucking retarded, because it isnt real and so you cannot say that as an authority, only the creators can

>>96089830
>Epistemology is literally the cause of what you think "won out"
Kek, no.
>Might", not "can".
Humans won’t be able to understand everything. This I do believe. But the idea that something else can’t? Don’t be silly.

Even if we can’t poke at something, there is still something there, presenting us from poking at it.

>>96089856
>if stamping your foot on the floor in x setting does nothing, but a chaacter repeats that exact same thing and it somehow resets the entire timeline, theres literally nothing about that thats rooted in physics.
Time(space) is physics. Moronic ape. Yes of course it’s rooted in physics. It’s just a weird occurrence.

You truly want something to be a lot more special than it is.

>>96089853
>Holy shit the sheer arrogance and retardation.

Nope. It’s the same with Chrisrians. If they think God is bigger than physics or materialism they’re essentially arguing He doesn’t exist at all!

Nice going. You need a high IQ to do religion properly.

>>96089874
I know you’re fucking retarded, so I’ll explain this as clearly and simply as possible.

It isn’t real. It’s fiction. If I say the magic of my setting isn’t rooted in the physics of whatever reality it’s based in, then it isn’t.

Trying to ‘umm ackshually’ your way out of it by baselessly asserting otherwise holds no merit

>>96089835
>>96089814
>>96089874
scientism and trolling.

>>96089774
There are at minimum two arguing against and the more-naked attempt at this thread was immediately shat upon for thirty posts.

>>96089789
>So your characters can’t move then. Because they aren’t in three dimensions.
They're simply not our three dimensions. There may be more, but they're definitely different.

>But you yourself hate archaic concepts since you keep claiming they historical ironies surrounding magic and religion “have no place” in games.
No, I hate your equivocations between DIFFERENT archaic concepts because it reduces said differences out of usability for a game.

>>96089802
Dimensionality alone does not entail the very long list of known physics. Hence the fine-tuning problem.

>>96089814
>Beyond-physics is still physics. Physics of the beyond. :^)
Nope. On exactly as much basis as your insistence of synonymy, I insist otherwise. To reconcile, identify the contradiction in priors and address them.

>You hate existence.
I hate your retarded insistence on extending monist materialism to hypotheses explicitly constructed to be contrary to it.

>>96089818
And things that exist yet you cannot observe?

>>96089835
And none of this MATTERS if you step away from the semantic argument that "magic" is synonymous with "wonder" to any of the very long list of particular definitions in history.

>>96089859
>Kek, no.
Citation needed.

>This I do believe. But the idea that something else can’t? Don’t be silly.
Then it is just a belief, not an established fact of science, and so you have conceded your half-assed appeal to authority.

>Even if we can’t poke at something, there is still something there, presenting us from poking at it.
Or there just isn't anything to poke at in the gap. Discontinuities crop up in math all the time.

>>96089874
>You truly want something to be a lot more special than it is.
No, I just want a word to have stable meanings so that it's usable in game rules.

>>96089884
>If they think God is bigger than physics or materialism they’re essentially arguing He doesn’t exist at all!
According to your worldview. According to theirs, physics is simply downstream from Him, with all the priors that make this a paradox absent.

narrative =/= physics
game rules =/= physics
ttrpgs operate on game rules and narrative, neither of which are physics.
jesus christ what is this thread

>>96089962
>jesus christ what is this thread
Bait that learned from a fail in >>96084074

>>96089962
>jesus christ what is this thread
ITT we have:
>Never read a book
>Never played a game
>Never finished school
>Can't imagine hypotheticals
>Wonderfag posting off topic turboautismo bait for over ten years
>Other turboautismos taking the bait
>Samefagging

>>96089987
Is bait physics?

>>96090022
>No Patrick, it's psychology
>...
>Magic isn't physics OR psychology either

“What is magic”
“I refuse to say”

>>96090019

>>96089907
>It isn’t real. It’s fiction. If I say the magic of my setting isn’t rooted in the physics of whatever reality it’s based in, then it isn’t.
Go ahead and try to make a fiction without math. Saying “and so math didn’t exist in my world” doesn’t work.
>Trying to ‘umm ackshually’ your way out of it by baselessly asserting otherwise holds no merit
‘Umm ackchyually’ implies logic being applied, however insufferable.

>>96090126
>Go ahead and try to make a fiction without math. Saying “and so math didn’t exist in my world” doesn’t work.
Can if he's the writer. You're not. His word supersedes yours.

>>96090022
>>96090042
Is brain chemistry physics? No of course not. Science is sliced like a pie. Physics and chemistry and such never touch. Believe me.

>>96089935
>And things that exist yet you cannot observe?
I guess stars we cannot see or detect aren’t physics. You keep making yourself look like a butthurt uneducated fag who resorts to other butthurt uneducated fags to protect himself.

>>96089962
So you’re saying, from the perspective of the in-setting characters, nothing is real?

>>96090138
Your brain should be sliced like a pie, I'm sure a neurologist would be fascinated by it.

>>96090136
>Can if he's the writer.
No it doesn’t. Even a nothing is a one by such a point. Fiction is actually limited. It doesn’t allow for true absurdities. A circle isn’t a triangle.

>>96089935
>No, I just want a word to have stable meanings so that it's usable in game rules.
That doesn’t mean a word can’t be filled with irony. Calling something miracles and another thing magic for the sake of the game is fine, for the sake of the game, but It’s still ironic.

>>96090166
>Can if he's the writer.
>No it doesn’t.
And that's why everyone shits on you. The fact you can't accept that premise is why people are just shitting on you rather than playing to your nonsensical rants. Cause in /tg/, that's how games fucking work, you absolute cock mongler.

>>96089935
All you’re doing is affirming that you hate or have an immense bias against materialism, to the point where you argue that God can’t exist—because that is essentially what a Christian does when they deny physics/materialism. They deny God’s existence. They deny that he has Godly Materials.

>>96090196
The fact that you can’t understand that math always exists shows me you have a very low IQ, and are beneath me.

You are my intellectual inferior.

>>96090208
The fact you continuously bring up irrelevant subjects rather than admit defeat no matter how often you're exposed as a fraud shows that you're lower than an infant in both emotional development and in mental strength.

>>96090154
>I guess stars we cannot see or detect aren’t physics.
According to the definition in >>96089818, apparently so.

>>96090182
>That doesn’t mean a word can’t be filled with irony.
It does in fact require the word not be filled with irony, so that retarded digressions like this do not intrude into the already bitter clusterfuck of RAW debates.

>>96090200
>All you’re doing is affirming that you hate or have an immense bias against materialism
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.

>to the point where you argue that God can’t exist
Only according to your insistence on injecting your worldview into another. Their priors are different from your priors, but tend to be more consistent because actually intelligent people carefully considered how the pieces fit together instead of just screeching re-affirmations of all of them in response to any one being pressed.

>>96090208
>The fact that you can’t understand that math always exists
You think math is the base-level logic rather than pre-mathematical formal logic, your opinions are outright inapplicable.

>>96090229
How can I admit defeat when I’m not even wrong? You cannot separate 1s and 0s from anything. This extends to fiction.

I’m pointing something out. You’re getting mad because I’m taking away your notions of imaginative freedom. Even the imagination comes from somewhere.

>>96090154
>So you’re saying, from the perspective of the in-setting characters, nothing is real?
They don't have a perspective because they aren't real. What a narrative is saying characters perceive =/= agents with perception

>>96090241
>How can I admit defeat when I’m not even wrong?
You being "Not Even Wrong" is how you go about refusing to admit any possible inaccuracy in your claims:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

>>96090241
We're not having the same conversation, though. You're trying to shift the conversation away because you can't acknowledge the rather salient point that you don't rate higher than a fiction's creator in terms of dictating what does and doesn't exist for their fiction. You do this because you are a coward and a mental infant, thinking that everyone else is as distractable as you when it comes to semantics and irrelevant points.

>>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.

>>96090258
There are no inaccuracies to my claim. You’re only claiming I’m wrong because “hur dur how does this relate to games”, but then you say shit like “materialism is just a theory”, leading me to assume you don’t actually care about games, you only care about arguing against physics and the overwhelming reality that is material.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you did believe in God.

>>96090304
How DOES it relate to games?

>>96090251
>They don't have a perspective because they aren't real.
But within that fiction they are human, and humans have perceptions. You know exactly what they’re getting at.

Something has to be real to be real. He has a point there.

>>96090316
>But within that fiction they are human
Because the narrative dictates they are human, they aren't actually human. They are concepts conveyed by a narrative. They don't exist. The narrative is what exists.
>and humans have perceptions.
Well it's a good thing they aren't actual humans
>You know exactly what they’re getting at.
Yes, and you're wrong.

>>96090296
>Something isn’t physics because we can look at it.
Then take it up with >>96089818 who gave that definition.

>When you vouch for magic being apart from physics, do you assume it’s there?
In those cases where the counterfactual operates on a non-monist non-materialist cosmology per archaic views of the world, yes. Because I reject your retarded jargon.

>No it doesn’t. You said you wanted a useful label for the sake of a game.
And to be useful the definition MUST be limited and particular. Insisting on ironies applying within the game context is insisting that the definition NOT be limited and particular, thus being unusable for hard game rules.

>You want other worldviews to be explored while denying them their presence.
No, that's you with asserting monist materialism even in counterfactuals.

>You’re essentially arguing that they can’t exist if you insist that they have no substance to them.
Incorrect, that is merely your conjecture from projecting your definitions I have repeatedly stated rejection of upon my statements. Revise your definitions until they describe my statements coherently.

>That mean there’s substance to Him.
Not in the materialist sense, as a thing explicitly defined as prior to reality as we know it.

>Saying otherwise is just retracting your words.
No, it's merely rejecting yours for the retarded jargon they are.

>It is. Math is found not made.
According to groups deeply invested in math in particular, not the wider consensus of philosophers tackling more general cases of logic.

>Even your fiction has an essential mathematical shape to it.
And this matters for whether or not "magic" can mean particular things instead of being locked to being synonymous with "wondrous" how, exactly?

>>96090304
>There are no inaccuracies to my claim.
According to you, who continues to refuse to address any conditional hypothetical or counterfactual where any premise of yours is defined to be inapplicable.

Physics haters be like: “no other things can be real, even in fiction”

Physicists be like: “but physics is concerned with what is real”

>>96090455
>he's resorting to even more strawmen to feel less butthurt
lol

>>96090471
I’m serious. This level of irony doesn’t bode well. Calling me a straw man or a troll is a form of “no u” cope.

>>96090471
Nah. Physics absolutely concerns itself with the real. If magic is real, it’s a part of physics. If a fictional setting happens to be real, even if only from its in-perspective, then it is physics. Simple as.

I’m samefagging btw.

>>96090491
There is no "irony". There is no secondary contrary meaning. There is simply a different context that does not apply to this discussion.

Again, you are Not Even Wrong. You do not fulfil the basic requirements to possibly be correct. You insist upon unfalsifiability, you refuse to address contrary priors, you beg your position be given special status, you constantly prescribe definitions, over and over again you keep making basic logic errors and just fail to address anything pointing them out.

>>96090491
Nobody hates or cares about physics. They just hate spamming retards like you, OP.

>>96086465 (OP)
Magic can be studied through the application of the scientific method and various tests of reproducibility, yes. But that doesn’t make it any less magical. What breeds contempt is not that something can be understood, but that we are familiar with it. So long as wizards aren’t handing out scrolls of whatever the fuck left and right, their knowledge and its applications will still carry the same awe and mystery to those who have not studied it.

>>96090501
Congratulations, you've proved you don't understand the concepts of physics nor fiction, something elementary schoolers have the barest grasp on. I hope your caretakers are proud.

>>96090501
>retard confuses semantics and linguistic shorthand for reality
The map is not the territory
There is no "in-perspective" for a narrative. It's just a shorthand for "what would the narrator say the characters would say about another aspect of the narrative?"

>>96090504
There is absolutely irony.

>>96090511
I love you too.

>>96090522
Keep misunderstanding physics. Keep thinking science is sliced like a pie.

>The map is not the territory
>fire isn’t fire
>fire has no chemistry
>fire isn’t physics
LMAO. Keep being retarded I guess. This is like arguing math was invented.

>>96090600
Keep screaming that you're not owned, you're not as you shrivel like a corncob while refusing to answer how any of this trollop relates to games. You had your chance, and you wasted it, you nogames faggot.

>>96086465 (OP)
It's simple - a wizard did it.

>>96090522
He’s arguing from the perspective of the fiction. You’re arguing from the perspective beyond the fourth wall. From the perception of the fiction, fiction is real. From the perception of the reader, the fiction is not real.

The issue here is OP is entertaining a given fiction being real or existent within its own bounds. You are not. He’s taken the next step. You have yet to do so.

Yes, Conan the Barbarian isn’t real, but readers are free to assume that the world is real to the barbarian.

>>96090600
>The map is not the territory
Writing as if this is a false statement just murdered any possibility that you're a sane, rational, and intelligent person

Science at its simplest is processes. It’s a process aiming to figure out processes. If it repeats, if it’s a process, it’s a science.

Even things that only happen once are a process.

>>96090628
Lol. I was meaning to respond to >>96090529

Maybe open your eyes next time.

>>96090625
No, he's not. He's only viewing it from his own diseased perspective, considering he can't answer how magic works in a game like L5R or Exalted. He can't even consider how this shit works from the perspective of a hypothetical person living within this setting because he can't conceive of a worldview outside his own.

>>96090628
It’s technically false since science looks at itself. There’s science to everything, even things we have yet to poke.

>>96090669
>No, he's not.
Yes he is. You can only assume a fiction isn’t physics if you aren’t entertaining it as real from within its own grounds.

If any sort of reality is present, it is physics. The only counter to this is “but it’s not real!”, which is fair, but the person isn’t arguing that. He’s arguing from the perspective that the fiction is real.

>>96090625
There is no perspective of the fiction, because it's not real.
>but readers are free to assume that the world is real to the barbarian.
No, the reader (may, doesn't even have to) simply suspend disbelief regarding the narrative. That doesn't magically make anything the narrative is saying real.

>>96090689
>There is no perspective of the fiction, because it's not real.
Not the argument. The argument is that it’s real. Within itself at least. You aren’t going to fault people for applying logic or inner consistency to fiction, are you?

>>96090600
>There is absolutely irony.
Let's look at some definitions of "irony":

>The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
Strictly dependent on your prescribed meaning of "magic" to apply.

>An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
Requires intent, thus inapplicable even with your prescription.

>Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
If anything applies against you.

>a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning
Given both sides are highly confident in their positions, still no.

What meaning of "irony" applies to a tightly contextually narrowed definition of "magic" such that its use for a game rule is objective fact within the fiction?

>>96090625
No, he's arguing from his perspective extended as-is into the fiction, refusing to address any possibility it may not fit his full set of priors.

>>96090639
>>96090670
Cease waffling about with irrelevant semantic arguments.

>>96090681
>You can only assume a fiction isn’t physics if you aren’t entertaining it as real from within its own grounds.
Or you could just use one of the definitions of "physics" that is not all-encompassing of even counterfactuals, like it being merely the scientific (itself confined by empiricism and thus inapplicable with sufficient unobservable factors) study of things rather than including the things themselves.

Look, if your primary argument revolves around forcing maximum ambiguity on the word "magic", don't be surprised when people counter by forcing ambiguity on your use of other words.

>>96090681
You don't even understand what I'm talking about, do you? Because the point is that the way magic works in certain games like Legend of the Five Rings and Exalted explicitly rely on us discarding particular notions of how we understand reality and physics should work in favor of how it's presented in their universe

>b-b-b-b-but that's physics too!

It's not "physics" in the way you and I understand it, from this reality. Trying to equate the two is apples to oranes. The rules are written as explicitly different. Mixing and matching whether we're talking about real world physics or tableotp game physics is beyond asinine, and why this shit always circles the drain like diarrhea in a toilet bowl.

>>96090689
Conan the Barbarian is a human. From this we can infer that he has his own perception of things, even if he’s fictional.

Saying “fiction isn’t real though” is just a copout or a sidestep of the hypothetical.

>>96090725
>It's not "physics" in the way you and I understand it, from this reality
Depends.

If you assume the fiction isn’t real as a point of its being, then it’s just not real. It’s not physics beyond the brain activity in your head and others.

If you apply logic to a given fiction and go and assume that the in-setting persons are perceiving their own world (they are humans after all), then the rules of reality - or physics - applies.

>>96090715
>Look, if your primary argument revolves around forcing maximum ambiguity on the word "magic"
Never did this. I’m saying it’s not a hard definition or a true and honest one. It’s an ironic one. You can still use it as a label, it’s just funny to me. You may as well be a wizard if you can do things others can’t.

>>96090709
>what's 1+1? And no you can't say it's 2
ok retard
>>96090727
Conan the Barbarian does not exist.
There is a narrative saying that a human named Conan the Barbarian exists and the narrative says that a human named Conan the Barbarian has his own perception of things.
Get out-autism'd, faggot.
>Saying “fiction isn’t real though” is just a copout or a sidestep of the hypothetical.
That's really fucking strange, because when the narrative says "magic is not physics" you believe that reality asserts itself over the narrative.
Now you're crying it's infair when I say that Conan the Barbarian is not real and so cannot have any perspective or opinions.

>>96090760
>If you assume the fiction isn’t real as a point of its being, then it’s just not real
Yes, that is 100% correct. Thank you for finally accepting it. Now we can be fucking done with this shit.

>>96090771
>Conan the Barbarian does not exist.
Correct.

The world is still real within itself. It’s even based on reality. All stories are to some degree. Therefore, had Hyperborea been real, it would be natural.

>>96090778
Nope. Because that’s not the argument. The argument is from the in-setting perspective, where in-setting characters treat their reality as real.

If you can’t apply real world logic to fiction then you’re not a smart person. You can’t do hypotheticals!

A hypothetical fiction that is also real is a form of reality and thus contains physics.

>>96090786
>The world is still real within itself.
Its not.
>It’s even based on reality
That doesn't make it real. That's why it's called fiction.
>Therefore, had Hyperborea been real, it would be natural.
But it isn't, so it's not.

And since it's not real, the narrator can say it has whatever properties the narrator damn well feels like. Including but not limited to, magic is not physics.
>>96090797
There is no in-setting perspective. Things that are not real cannot have a perspective. At best there is a narrative describing what the narrator states these nonexistent beings believe.

>>96090797
It was indeed the argument, anon. I already accepted your defeat, you can let go now.

>he thinks a magic missile has no particle physics to it
If there’s no micro existence then the macro existence as we know it doesn’t exist either

>>96090770
>I’m saying it’s not a hard definition or a true and honest one.
So you are saying it's something mutually exclusive with using it for a hard game rule.

>It’s an ironic one.
Refer to the first part addressing meanings of the word "irony". The only extant case for this is a contranym.

>>96090786
>Therefore, had Hyperborea been real, it would be natural.
Not according to the highly archaic worldview of its residents, a factor you continue to ignore.

>>96090811
I fail to see why a Force effect must have substantial particles nor why the counterfactual is bound to "as we know it".

>>96090804
>Its not.
It is. There’s characters and personalities and everything. It’s not real but the setting has internal consistency.

>That doesn't make it real.
I’m not saying it is. The argument is if it was hypothetically real.
>That's why it's called fiction.
Yes. Fiction isn’t real.

>But it isn't, so it's not.
So you can’t do hypotheticals. How would you feel had you not eaten breakfast this morning?
>>96090808
Nope. OP has only ever argued that the setting is real within itself. It’s a self contained reality. That means it’s physics.

You’re only going “no fiction isn’t real so we can’t apply logic to it” to avoid the big point.

>>96090829
>I fail to see why a Force effect must have substantial particles nor why the counterfactual is bound to "as we know it".
Replace Force with Everything Else. You won’t exist. The macro is built and supported by the micro. That’s physics.

I don’t know why this thread exists.

>>96090804
Are you actually retarded? We’re playing around with hypotheticals and you’re just unable to do that. Can you even imagine things at all?

>>96090812
>Not according to the highly archaic worldview of its residents
Residents get murdered and sacrificed to dark gods all the time. That’s real to them.

>>96090847
>Nope. OP has only ever argued that the setting is real within itself. It’s a self contained reality. That means it’s physics.
Not in Exalted. Which you have yet to refute beyond refusing to even engage in the argument in favor of one you made up for yourself, OP.

>>96090812
>So you are saying it's something mutually exclusive with using it for a hard game rule.
No. Magic in one game isn’t magic in another, but those same terms and labels still work for the sake of the game. The Magus in Pathfinder is incorrect, but that is just how it is. You just assume the language evolved for it to mean a warrior mage rather than a priestly or prestigious one.

>>96090847
>It’s not real but the setting has internal consistency.
Is there a reason this must be consistent with the externality of our reality?

>The argument is if it was hypothetically real.
Separately, as a counterfactual wherein things that differ from our world remain.

>That means it’s physics.
Not according to the limited definition we've been using.

>>96090854
>Replace Force with Everything Else.
No, because that is not an argument I have made.

>The macro is built and supported by the micro. That’s physics.
In our world. In D&D, lower-level phenomena are routinely determined by the higher, with Gond declaring terms of chemistry from beyond any mortal human perspective.

>>96090873
>Not in Exalted.
Exalted plays in absurds and could only be supported using dreamscape logic or simulation technology that emulates dream logic.

>>96090847
>There’s characters and personalities and everything.
That's what the narrator is expressing, doesn't make them real. Sorry to tell you this but there's no multiverse and your favorite stories aren't real and you will never ever isekai to any of those worlds because they aren't real.
>The argument is if it was hypothetically real.
Might as well be arguing if hypothetically 1 + 1 =/= 2
>So you can’t do hypotheticals.
>>96090869
You're the one having trouble with hypotheticals, can't even comprehend the narrator saying that within the fictional universe it is describing magic is not physics. You're contradicting yourself, as you're insisting simultaneously that what a narrator describes is real to itself, but also that the narrator is wrong when the narrator says that magic is not physics. Pick one (1).
>the setting is real within itself.
A thing that is not real cannot be real. Internally consistent does not make something real any more than being internally inconsistent makes it less real. Both are equally not real.

>>96090887
>Not according to the limited definition we've been using.
The most common assumption of physics is that it concerns itself with the universe and indeed everything. You saying it does not doesn’t change that fact. You just don’t like what physics entails. That’s fine. You already confirmed you’re an anti-materialist who’s borderline religious in mentality.

>>96090903
>You're the one having trouble with hypotheticals
No. That would be you, if you can’t entertain another reality being real. You can’t do it. How would you feel had you not ate breakfast this morning?

>A thing that is not real cannot be real
Not the argument. The argument is the reality being real. It would no longer be fiction, it would be physics. This goes for any hypothetically real fiction.

>>96090895
Precisely, it explicitly doesn't adhere to the already false premise that physics is immutable as well as physics being the prevailing factor of the universe in the setting of Exalted. Which means it doesn't fall under OP's retarded assertions. Glad we've worked that out.

>>96090925
>if you can’t entertain another reality being real
Ironic coming from someone who can't entertain that magic is not physics even when an omnipotent omniscient being regarding that hypothetical reality is telling you so.
>This goes for any hypothetically real fiction.
No, because it's not real. You have no way to substantiate this. It's literally a baseless assertion.

>he can’t think from the perspective of a given fiction

Interchangeable thinking is a hard thing to do for you guys, eh? This is essentially an inability to have sympathy or put yourself in another’s shoes.

You’re all inhuman.

>>96089091
>They’re being squeezed by two sides of something.
This is different from
>>96088986
>getting squeezed by two things
Just FYI.

>>96090869
>Residents get murdered and sacrificed to dark gods all the time. That’s real to them.
The point is that they have a robust conception of "nature" as a distinct category within "real" separate from the "supernatural" like said dark gods.

>>96090884
>Magic in one game isn’t magic in another
Irrelevant to the meaning of it within one game's rules. Stop forcing "holistic thinking" on narrow applications, that breaks things that are important to the application functioning.

>>96090895
...Yes, it does in fact work on wobbly bullshit. That's the point. The titular Exalts rebooted Time on more than one occasion. It is mostly self-consistent, but incredibly thorough in not being consistent with our world.

>>96090909
>The most common assumption of physics is that it concerns itself with the universe and indeed everything.
Citation. Needed.

>You saying it does not doesn’t change that fact
And you saying it does does not establish that fact.

>You just don’t like what physics entails.
No, I don't like your constant retreat to unfalsifiable semantic arguments on EVERY SINGLE FUCKING POINT.

>You already confirmed you’re an anti-materialist
No, I just want "materialism" to stay in our world instead of overriding the examination of archaic misconceptions and fiction derived thereof the way you misuse it.

>>96090925
>That would be you, if you can’t entertain another reality being real.
No, that would be you, if you can't entertain another reality having different parameters that break your prescribed synonymies.

>>96090971
>Interchangeable thinking is a hard thing to do for you guys, eh?
It's you who has the trouble, given your total inability to change out any of your priors regarding synonymy of "reality", "science", "physics", "existence", and sundry others or reduction of "magic" to a subjective non-thing around sociology jargon for even a single contrary position.

>>96090971
Considering you literally can't conceive of a world where magic isn't tied to physics, that's the pot calling the kettle an Uncle Tom

>how would the halfling feel, seeing his elf friend get eaten by the ogre?
>but the halfling isn’t real, so he doesn’t feel anything
>…anon

>>96091124
Considering you didn't explain whether or not that elf bitch ever paid back that fifty copper he owes, that's a more than valid response

>>96091124
uh oh, baby having trouble telling the difference between a hypothetical and reality?
Baby can't comprehend that a question can have more than 1 correct answer?

>>96091124
/thread

>>96091124
>>96091237
>magic is not physics in this setting
>but the setting is real, so it has physics, so magic must be physics
thoughts dreamed by the utterly deranged

Does everything ultimately boil down to physics?

Yes it does, but with an important caveat: the most fundamental level of explanation isn’t always (arguably, isn’t often) the most useful level of explanation. It’s tempting to think that by zooming in as close as possible you will understand a system better, but that’s usually not true; radically new properties and behaviours become apparent at different scales which are functionally impossible to intuit from the fundamental principles of physics.

For example, a brick and an iPhone are made up of more or less identical subatomic particles, and getting a deeper grip on the relationship between up- and down-quarks won’t help you tell the difference between the two. Understanding the higher order arrangements of those fundamental units - how they are arranged into atoms, how the atoms are assembled into molecules, the arrangement of those molecules into semiconductors or convenient structural oblongs - is important to have a meaningful understanding of a system.

When you go right up to really abstract concepts like meaning and experience, the connection to physics become sort of tenuous. I would strongly argue that it’s still there in the background, the providing the necessary substrate for our cognition, but boiling the question down to physics won’t help you understand the metaphors and allusions in a Shakespearean sonnet, or the role of race and class in the development of rock and roll music.

We share 50% of our dna with bananas.

>>96091310
Arguably, clinging too tightly to the notion that physics is the ultimate arbiter can make playing through certain games more difficult, particularly the ones where part of the buy-in for the game's setting is that certain phenomena and ways reality function differ fundamentally from our own, like one that starts with an established fact that there is a reality that exists outside of what humans can naturally see or perceive like the afterlife. It's pretty important to define what is and isn't supposed to be "natural" so that players don't get blindsided attempting a feat they would assume should work out from their understanding in real life or become paralyzed through lack of understanding of what portion of their expectations are transferable to the game's general outcome. It's why clear definitions of what is "natural" and "unnatural" are important in games.

Science made us. Can’t exactly avoid it.

>>96091481
Only if you water down its meaning to the point it loses all its explanatory power.

>science made us
No it didn’t, biology made us. Biology isn’t physics or science. We invented science. Not even giving you a (you).

Oh boy. Ever hear the phrase “science is everywhere?”.

"Science is everywhere" means that scientific principles are not confined to laboratories or textbooks but are fundamental to the world around us and our everyday experiences. From the natural world to technology, even simple activities like cooking or using a smartphone involve scientific concepts.

The Natural World:
Science is the study of the natural world, and that world is all encompassing. Everything from the air we breathe to the stars in the sky operates according to scientific principles.

Everyday Applications:
Science is not just theoretical; it's practical. It's the basis for the technology we use, the food we eat, and our medicine.

Human Curiosity:
At its heart, science is about curiosity and exploration. This inherent human trait drives us to investigate, understand, and interact with the world around us.

Interconnectedness:
Scientific principles are interconnected. Understanding one area of science can often illuminate other areas, demonstrating the holistic nature of scientific knowledge.

Accessibility:
While some scientific concepts can be complex, the core principles are often accessible and can be understood through observation and experimentation.

Cooking:
Chemistry and physics are involved in the transformations that occur when food is cooked.

Technology:
Smartphones, computers, and the internet are all products of scientific and engineering advancements.

Nature:
Observing weather patterns, plant growth, or animal behavior demonstrates scientific principles in action.

Health and Medicine:
Understanding the human body, disease, and treatments is rooted in scientific research.

Transportation:
From cars to airplanes, the technology we use to move around is based on scientific principles of physics and engineering.

In essence, "Science is everywhere" is a reminder that scientific understanding is not separate from our lives but rather an integral part of it.

>>96091528
I do not have a "I Heckin Love Science" basedjack detestable enough for this blindly quoted psyop.

>>96091562
>basedjack
...Some day, I will figure out the word filter. It will not be internalized, but it will be vaguely remembered.

>>96091606
The key is the word that rhymes with roy

>>96090424
If you can observe it, it is physical. That's what "physical" MEANS. Fucking idiot.

>>96091636
Again, take it up with >>96089818.

>>96091654
That's me, moron. I'm taking it up with you, since you're the one with incorrect beliefs.

>>96091659
Then you're contradicting yourself on definitions. If you cannot keep them straight, then semantic arguments as a whole are not valid from you. As almost all of your arguments have been so due to your insistence upon inflated meanings of words, you are left with fuck-all points made.

>>96091698
No, I'm not. Both of the posts you quoted say "If you can observe it, it's physical". Point out the contradiction.

>>96091708
In case you missed a step in the reply chain, it is in fact contradicting >>96090296:
>Something isn’t physics because we can look at it

>>96091722
You didn't quote that post, and that isn't me. Why would I argue on his behalf? Did I ever claim to agree with that poster about anything?

>>96091733
>You didn't quote that post, and that isn't me.
It's what I quoted in >>96090424, dumbass.

>>96091771
Why did you tell me to take it up with myself, dumbass?

>>96091774
Because I assumed you to be making a counter-point to this line:
>Then take it up with >>96089818 who gave that definition.
Maybe try quoting the specific line of the mass-quote you intend to address next time.

>>96091783
I quoted the post I replied to, which is the post I was addressing. I wasn't addressing anyone else. Best of luck with your schizo meltdown.

Warhammer Fantasy, specifically, the Warhammer Fantasy Skaven, specifically, the Clan Skryre of the Warhammer fantasy Skaven already solved this dilemma.
The answer to "how do you differentiate magic from science" is simply "who cares, it kill-slaughters things regardless"

>>96091636
>If you can observe it, it is physical.
this nigga never had dreams before lmfao
Aphantasia having nigga

I appreciate OP for pissing off whoever the hell this epistemology obsessed fag is

>>96096053
What do you think dreams are, moron?