Fantasy world maps and real world geology

[fusangite]

Doug, you have offered two different definitions just in your reply.

I'm working with the wikipedia definition here and not the second definition.

Physics (Greek: φύσις (phúsis), "nature" and φυσικῆ (phusiké), "knowledge of nature") is the branch of science concerned with the discovery and characterization of universal laws which govern matter, energy, space, and time. The role of physics, then, is to provide a logically ordered picture of nature in agreement with experience.

What RC and I are stating is that if one "discovered and characterized the universal laws" of a D&D world, these laws would be different from the physical laws governing our world.

If you tried to discover and characterize the laws of a D&D world, the "ordered picture of nature in agreement with experience," would not be the same as the physics of our world. If "nature" is different in a D&D world, it therefore follows that the physics of that world cannot be the same as the physics of our world.

A "logically ordered picture of nature in agreement with experience" would need to agree with the following experiences in a D&D world, for example:

• dragons' breath weapon attacks
• spells
• elementals
• psionics
• multiple gods who answer prayers
• magic items

Because both nature and experience are different in D&D worlds because they must include those things, the physics of a D&D world cannot be the same as the physics of our world.

Mostly I was thinking of the subject as it is taught in schools and universities today. When I studied it at school we covered kinetics (objects in motion, including falling), particle physics, heat, electricity and radiation. The subject at a higher level would also include relativity and quantum theory.

You see: this model of physics is consistent with the nature of our world and people's experiences in it. But it is not consistent with the nature of a D&D world or people's experiences therein. Would you have been taught exactly the same model if people were able to cast Fireball in this world? No. The rules of heat would be amended based on empirical investigation of how people cast Fireball.

"Physics" is not inflexible and universe-spanning. The local definition of "physics" is dependent on what phenomena it is seeking to explain. If local definitions did not vary by universe, the global definition that requires physics to be in accord with nature and experience would not hold true because nature and experience are not identical in all fantasy universes.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If the rules are a completely true account of the way a D&D universe works then they cannot be physics. Physics is a branch of human knowledge. It is an imperfect understanding of reality.

I believe you should be saying that the D&D rules are not physics but physical laws. They are, in your view, the physical laws of another reality. Not the physical laws as understood by the inhabitants of those worlds, but the true physical laws.

 

[DM-Rocco]

When I started making maps and designing fantasy worlds, I actively searched out books to make the world as real as possible. It has been a while since I read it, but when I get home I'll see if I can find it. It did a great job of explaining why a forest would be on one side of a mountain and a dessert on the other, as an example.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Even the rules for magic, psionics etc don't tell us what those different physical laws might be. They merely *imply* different physical laws. They are mostly concerned with practical stuff like the damage of a fireball.

 

[fusangite]

If the rules are a completely true account of the way a D&D universe works then they cannot be physics.

Why not?

Physics is the rules of a world not of our world.

Physics means physical laws. That's all it means. The definition you presented from wikipedia says exactly that.

I believe you should be saying that the D&D rules are not physics but physical laws. They are, in your view, the physical laws of another reality.

I see that I was right in my suspicions. You believe "physics" means something other than "physical laws" (or our best approximation/model thereof).

But that is what "physics" means. Your remark is akin to someone saying, "You don't mean this guy is disoriented. You mean he is disorientated." "Physics" and "physical laws" are effectively synonyms; they both refer to a working approximate model of reality that is consistent with nature and experience. They mean exactly the same thing. They have the same definition and the same linguistic cognates.

If you look at the definition of "physics" you posted from wikipedia, you will see that wikipedia is using my definition of physics. When Raven Crowking and I say "physics" in this thread, we mean "physical laws." We have been saying this repeatedly throughout the thread. Now, if you want to say we are using the word "physics" incorrectly, you will need to supply us with a definition of the term that disagrees with, rather than supporting our usage.

Or, and perhaps this is the better option, we can agree to place the word "physics" off-limits in the interests of moving the debate forward and not getting hung up on terminology. Just take out the word "physics" from all of RC's and my past posts and replace it with "physical laws" and then let's re-evaluate how much (if any) disagreement remains.

 

[fusangite]

Even the rules for magic, psionics etc don't tell us what those different physical laws might be. They merely *imply* different physical laws. They are mostly concerned with practical stuff like the damage of a fireball.

It is clear that, as far as literary genre goes, the RAW are Applied Physics not Theoretical Physics. But Applied Physics, as a discipline, is no less physics than Theoretical Physics. Both are concerned with and describe the rules of cause and effect. But whereas Theoretical Physics is more interested in explaining why its model is true, Applied Physics is concerned with giving people the tools they need to use the rules that have been discovered.

I actually think that, as inconvenient as it is, D&D would hugely benefit from a Theoretical Physics section in its books. I think that its tendency to ignore the theoretical and go exclusively for the applied means that there are more misunderstandings of these fantasy worlds than there need to be.

 

[Doug McCrae]

But by physics or physical laws do you mean the world as it really is or the world as it is understood to be?

There is a term from philosophy, noumenon, which means the world as it really is, beyond human perception. It seems inconceivable to me that the noumenon could resemble the D&D rules however as the noumenon is beyond human understanding.

Our debate itself seems to show that physics isn't a good word for what you are describing. 'Physics' as we use the term doesn't cover magic or psionics. Would the inhabitants of a D&D universe describe an expert on magic as a physicist? Or would they call him a wizard?

 

[fusangite]

'Physics' as we use the term as I incorrectly use the term doesn't cover magic or psionics.

FIFY

Would the inhabitants of a D&D universe describe an expert on magic as a physicist? Or would they call him a wizard?

In my worlds, wizard means physicist. But yes, if you want to look at the study of magic before the 18th century, alchemists and magi understood themselves to be studying physics and making discoveries about physics. That's, in part, why Newton did so much alchemical work: he saw it as fundamentally part of his job as a physicist.

Furthermore, what people studying physics are called in D&D worlds is irrelevant to whether they are studying physics. People don't cease to be physicists because they give themselves a different name anymore than people who aren't doing physics can turn themselves into physicists simply by calling themselves physicists.

If you want to know if someone is a physicist, you can use the wikipedia definition to identify them. If somebody is "discover[ing] and characteriz[ing] universal laws which govern matter, energy, space, and time" in order to "provide a logically ordered picture of nature in agreement with experience," then they are doing physics, irrespective of what they call themselves.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm not even sure applied physics would be the correct term. Again from wikipedia:

Applied physics is a general term for physics which is intended for a particular technological or practical use. "Applied" is distinguished from "pure" by a subtle combination of factors such as the motivation and attitude of researchers and the nature of the relationship to the technology or science that may be affected by the work.[1] It usually differs from engineering in that an applied physicist may not be designing something in particular, but rather is using physics or conducting physics research with the aim of developing new technologies or solving an engineering problem.

The rules for magic in D&D are more like rules for technology, ie stuff that actually works, rather than a process for creating new technologies. In a D&D world that would be something like creating incarnum magic or truename magic.

 

[Whisper72]

Well, to me it largely depends upon the mood of the game, and it is not a hard/fast rule.
In general, I like even my fantasy worlds to make sense, so yeah, the geological rules should be adhered to (i.e. rivers stream to the sea, generally start in hills/mountains, terrain types flow into eachother logically etc.), but I DO like for there to be those strange rule bending things, which stress the fact that there is something magical going on:
- a river starting in the desert, f.ex. because a massive decanter of endless water was once lost there or a hole in the fabric of space to the elemental plane of water is tehre
- a glacier in the middle of the jungle, because there is some lingering magic from the time of the Great Ice Age somehow preserving it
etc. etc.

So, no single definitive anser...