Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4039547" data-attributes="member: 4937">Am I a respected lexicographist such that I'm such an authority on the meanings of words that you don't need a dictionary?Are you suggesting that like Humpty Dumpty I'm reserving the right for each word to mean exactly what I intend it to mean?When I finally figured what was bugging me about the OP's thesis, I used a dictionary to check the definition of physics before I set down my thesis.&nbsp; I would expect if you did, that you'd read something along these lines:&quot;1. The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics. 2. Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws: the physics of supersonic flight. 3. The study of the natural or material world and phenomena; natural philosophy.&quot;I'm using the term in the sense of definition #2 and similar definitions like it - the laws and properties which govern the interaction and movement of matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; In the case of 'game physics' I mean the laws and properties which govern the conceptually existing objects in the game universe.&nbsp; I spent the whole first section of my argument demonstrating that the 'rules of the game' weren't merely the 'rules as written'.&nbsp; It didn't cause that much stir back then.&nbsp; Pretty much everyone seemed to agree that the 'rules of the game' includes more things than just the rules which have been written down.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4039547, member: 4937"] Am I a respected lexicographist such that I'm such an authority on the meanings of words that you don't need a dictionary? Are you suggesting that like Humpty Dumpty I'm reserving the right for each word to mean exactly what I intend it to mean? When I finally figured what was bugging me about the OP's thesis, I used a dictionary to check the definition of physics before I set down my thesis. I would expect if you did, that you'd read something along these lines: "1. The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics. 2. Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws: the physics of supersonic flight. 3. The study of the natural or material world and phenomena; natural philosophy." I'm using the term in the sense of definition #2 and similar definitions like it - the laws and properties which govern the interaction and movement of matter. In the case of 'game physics' I mean the laws and properties which govern the conceptually existing objects in the game universe. I spent the whole first section of my argument demonstrating that the 'rules of the game' weren't merely the 'rules as written'. It didn't cause that much stir back then. Pretty much everyone seemed to agree that the 'rules of the game' includes more things than just the rules which have been written down. [/QUOTE]

Verification