# Erislover's witnessing thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2001, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865 "2001-08-30T02:27:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/41 "2001-08-30T22:55:11Z")
> [@](#): > > RE: explanations are superfluous. Your resistence to my thoughts on why such a thing is true is evidence a-plenty of this. No. You stil are not catching what I throw. You said “explanations are superfluous”. Then you explained Life, the Universe, and Everything using a model of game theory and an axiom of meta-Consciousness. I noted that this was contradictory. What you characterize as resistance to your thoughts on “why such a thing is true” is actually a n observation that you employ the very thing you claim to reject. And, yes, it is reminiscent of our discussion of QM. > [@](#): > > Has I started a thread that said, “Let’s assume a lone consciousness exists in nothing. What does this imply? What sort of things are likely to happen?” Where would your focus be then? Then my focus would be on the implications of such a scenario (until the point where you again tried to use that axiom to explain observable reality while simultaneously deriding explanations, of course.) Until you attempt to tie the game to observable reality, it is just a thought exercise, a bit of hypothetical whimsy, a (you know it’s coming) . . .mind game. > [@](#): > > All explanations are space fillers, but some people like to follow them anyway. No. Some explanations actually answer that question “why” which you seem so fond of. My objection was not to the explanation. My objection was to the absurdity of explaining while asserting that explanations are meaningless. > [@](#): > > Why is it bright in here? Because I flipped a light switch. Did that answer the question? Yes. Other answers might be: “Because I desired brightness”, “because the number of photons striking your pupil exceeds your self-defined threshhold for brightness”, “becuase electricity passing through a coil of certain metals in the appropriate atmosphere produces incandescence”, etc. Any answer, of course, has bounded informational content and may or may not satisfy all aspects of a query. If you find that level of detail insufficient, perhaps you should phrase the question to direct the response to the context you desire. > [@](#): > > If I lied to you and said, “Because I just farted” would that matter? That would depend upon my purpose in asking the question. As a general case, I would say, “yes”. > [@](#): > > Have you correctly applied the razor, or simply answered the question with another statement that will cause a question? If you think Occam’s Razor, or the lack thereof, has any bearing upon the “completeness” of any given response to any given question, I submit that you do not understand William’s point at all. Statements do not cause questions. However, any answer apprehended by a limited mind is limited in context. That is independent of teh method used to determine the answer. You seem to think that pushing the indeterminacy up one level and declaring that level off limits to questions is a satisfactory response to this. Hey, whatever works for you. You are hardly the first person to declare, “because [Conscious Entity] made it that way” is the most satisfactory response to any line of questioning. I am hardly the first person to declare, “it doesn’t satisfy me.” > [@](#): > > I have an unprovable assertaion: There is a Consciousness existing in nothing. That statement has no implications without a stronger definition of Consciousness. If you would care to be explicit about the other axioms required to spin **ERL’s Universal Mind Game** then I will tell you what implications I see from that structure. > [@](#): > > **me:** The only support for the idea that I could find in your OP had to do with a modeling of reality that matched your imagined consequences of such a creation. > > **erl:** It is the only thing which actually explains our existence. [ul][li]There you go demanding explanations again. I thought they were superfluous?[/li][li]What are you using to rule out other explanations (IPU, blind watchmaker, Godless chance, etc.)? You have rejected Occam (or claimed to). So how do you winnow th elist of candidates to just yours?[/li][li]I thought you said you were not using the consequences to prove the cause? Is it just the word “prove” that you are relying on to justify that juxtaposition of statements? “It’s the only explanation” **but** “I’m not trying to prove it/” Okay – how about proving that “it’s the only explanation.”[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > I see games everywhere: this is the consequence of a mind busy with diversion. Ah – so you **are** arguing cause from consequence. How do you do this while rejecting Occam? [li]“Games are everywhere in human life because humans invent games.”[/li][li]“Games are everywhere in human life because it is not possible for a conscious entity to develop without plaay.”[/li][li]“Games are everywhere in human life because ‘games’ is simply another way of saying ‘something a person does’”[/li][li]“Games are everywhere in human life because Loki has conquered Asgard and the world conforms to his desires.”[/li][li]“Games aren’t actually everywhere in human life, but we can make a game out of anything if we want to.”[/li] > [@](#): > > You will find no evidence of anything outside our universe. That is forbidden by the rules. “Rules” can be seen as implying a rulemaker. A more neutral phrasing is: _We will find no direct evidence for anything outside of the observable Universe because the observable Universe is defined by our perception._ We actually can find eidence for things such as virtual particles which are outside of the observable Universe; it just isn’t direct evidence. > [@](#): > > I think it is quite simple, if you are into those sort of things. I am very much into games. I am also into logic. Simple is a word with more than one meaning. > [@](#): > > If not, then ignore the explanation of why I think such a thing; it is, after all, incidental to the core assumption. I will ignore it if you will stop presenting your assumption as a reasoned extrapolation from observed reality. > [@](#): > > The universe had no choice schtick? The Universe is not a conscious agent schtick. I am not a pantheist. > [@](#): > > Things I think my analogy says: happiness is possible, however temporary. Permanent happiness is not strictly or obviously forbidden. It is our goal to achieve this happiness if we can. Once we achieve this happiness there is nothing else. > > Evidence for the above: diversionary games enjoyed by man for recorded history. The drive for liesure as a commodity. The seeming importance of kinship. The struggle to obtain things which are limited in quantity, and afterwards the struggle to use that limited quantity for as long as possible. Assumptions in the above:[ul] [li]The purpose of diversionary games is to generate happiness.[/li][li]Permanence is a meaningful descriptor for a human emotion.[/li][li]Purpose and the object of desire are synonymous (or at least have a definitive correlation).[/li][li]Happiness is the sole intended consequence of leisure.[/li][li]Kinship has some relationship to happiness (I’m really not sure how kinship relates to your list of “things my analogy says”. Perhaps you could explicate.)[/li][li]Resources have been limited by a conscious entity.[/li][li]The desire to control a limited resource is grounded only in the desire to feel happiness.[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > Expected evidence for a pretty religious viewpoint: depends on who we ask, I guess None, as a general case. A whole bunch if you present that viewpoint as corresponding to (even being the “only answer to”) human reality. > [@](#): > > **me:** I accuse you of writing a self-contradictory OP. > > **erl:** So you say. Not interested in the pizza if the pizza guy can’t park the way you expect people to? No. Not interested in eating the pizza if the ingredients are inedible. I say your OP contains contradictions. You are certainly welcome to dismiss my observation with witty metaphors, but I would find it more interesting if you either reconciled the inconsistencies or demonstrated that my observations were incorrect. The expectations of this forum are that an argument will stand up to reasoned examination. Perhaps you meant to deliver your dish to a different house. > [@](#): > > This debate is a huge game, and that comment may make some people think I am trolling but I assure you that isn’t my intention . . . and you’ve got rules you’d like to introdcue to play. I do not think you are trolling, and I am not troubled by the idea that a debate can be seen as a game. It is not a new game, though. The rules of a debate in this forum have been long established by both dictate from the owners and consensual action by the participants. I have no desire to introduce any new rules. If you would like to suspend some rules, or change them, then please state so clearly and specifically. > [@](#): > > let’s compromise so we can both play. Forget the explanations, and take the assumption anyway. What does it imply to you? If we forget the explanations **and** take the assumptions away it implies, quite literally, nothing. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2001, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/42 "2001-08-31T00:00:01Z")
We cannot ever know everything; any attempt to explain it is superfluous. Try asking yourself a simple question… about anything. Then answer it. Then ask, “why?” then answer that. then ask “why?” Repeat ad nauseum. If possible, tell me when it bottoms out. If one doesn’t bottom out, try it on something else. If you can do that, I will take back very quickly that explanations are supefluous (and please present it); if not, if the “why’s” never bottom out, then I submit the following: any attempt at solid explanation is impossible. All explanations-- though they may or may not be useful in som ways-- are superfluous and _not_ necessary for understanding. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2001, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/43 "2001-08-31T00:20:58Z")
douglips wrote: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > > **…on Venus: the 90 atmosphere pressure carbon dioxide atmosphere bends the incoming sunlight so severely that the entire planetary surface is lit…** > > Cite, please. > > Not because I don’t believe you, just because that’s _way cool_. Sadly, it appears I was mistaken. It **used to** be thought that Venus’s atmosphere would refract the light so much, the horizon would appear to curve **upward**. It was even thought that an observer standing on the surface would be able to see all the way around the planet, twice! Unfortunately, the pictures sent back from the Venera landers (and others?) showed the Venusian horizon to lie much flatter than had been predicted. And even if it were the case that one could see all the way around the planet twice, apparently it would **still** not have been enough to light the nightside of the planet. The sky would look like hazy, yellow, overcast clouds during the day and … well … **dark** at night. Damned if I can find a website that talks about this phenomenon, though. Perhaps I imagined it. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2001, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/44 "2001-08-31T02:14:40Z")
The fact that some “why” questions cannot be answered is of little use beyond annoying parents and teachers. As I said above, human answers are bound by human limitations and thus apply only within a context. It is always possible to ask a question which is unanswerable within a given context. Why you feel this reveals some great truth of the Universe is beyond me. Lots of people propose solutions to the “Ultimate Why”: God, chance, the Great Gamer in the sky. Some people even declare their solutions to be the only possible solution. I have yet to see one of those folks support that position with sound reasoning. Perhaps you will be the first. > [@](#): > > If you can do that, I will take back very quickly that explanations are supefluous (and please present it); if not, if the “why’s” never bottom out, then I submit the following: any attempt at solid explanation is impossible. All explanations-- though they may or may not be useful in som ways-- are superfluous and not necessary for understanding. [li] **If you can tell me why _ERL’s Great Gamer of Consciousness_ is not an explanation,** [/li]I will stop pointing out the obvious. [li] **If you can tell me why it is more reasonable to assert that every “why” must have an Ultimate Answer than to assert that certain properties of our reality exist independent of conscious creation,** [/li]I will agree that the "why"s never bottom out. Otherwise, they bottom out at, “the Universe is shaped that way”. This is not particularly different from, “The Great Gamer made it that way”, except that it doesn’t require a Great Gamer. [li] **If you can tell me why “doesn’t provide solutions in all contexts” should be considered synonymous with “is superfluous”,** [/li]I will attempt to use the word in accordance with your new definition. [li] **If you can tell me how understanding can be solid without a solid explanation,** [/li]I will point out that this seriously weakens your case against explanations. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2001, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/45 "2001-08-31T03:25:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Lots of people propose solutions to the “Ultimate Why” I don’t mean to. > [@](#): > > The fact that some “why” questions cannot be answered is of little use beyond annoying parents and teachers. Actually, I took it to be useful in that we weren’t _supposed_ to understand everything. As I said in the OP, that is not The Point. Some people find he idea that truth doesn’t bottom out particularly intriguing, you really think such a statement is useless? I can’t believe that after some of the conversations we’ve been in, but you also have no motivation to lie so color me 😕 > [@](#): > > If you can tell me why ERL’s Great Gamer of Consciousness is not an explanation Well, by any common understanding of the word “explanation” it is; in light of the endless “why” chain it is no better at describing anything than caying the entire world is on the back of turtle. As I mentioned, it is an explanation which only raises more questions. > [@](#): > > If you can tell me why it is more reasonable to assert that every “why” must have an Ultimate Answer than to assert that certain properties of our reality exist independent of conscious creation I cannot. It is possible that some “whys” never have an Ultimate Answer. Our universe can be described as a competion between competing physical forces; our lives are based on gamelike interaction. Our bodies are designed for rewarding happiness and pleasure. I feel that those three things are not a coincidence. Furthermore, I don’t see that either explanation: “The Consciousness does/does not exist” provides any resolution; I don’t see that one is more rational than the other. They are both very strong but-- as always-- unsupportable assertations. > [@](#): > > If you can tell me why “doesn’t provide solutions in all contexts” should be considered synonymous with “is superfluous” It notes that even though every question cannot be answered we still manage a level of understadning. If we never really answered a question, but came to an understanding, I think the explanations were truly unnecessary. I have no idea how we understand everything. I think it is unnecessary for us to understand even that. We certianly plod along without it. We just make our own rules as we go 😉 > [@](#): > > If you can tell me how understanding can be solid without a solid explanation I wish I could explain. In the end we weren’t built for such a thing. **epolo** “You want to believe in Games with a capital G…” well, I don’t see that it matters whether or not anyone agrees we are part of a Game. You’ll have a hard time convincing me we aren’t built for playing one. I don’t think that that alone is indicative of a Consciousness; for me it is, as I said above, that the entire structure of what we understand about the universe is a struggle between competing forces, their domans, their applicabilities… ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/46 "2001-09-01T21:03:55Z")
It isn’t all that great. In fact, it stinks! I keep having to be the policeman and drive around in this obnoxiouosly bright yellow car without a windshield. The great Game Master in the Sky seems to keep running out of all the pink pegs, so I keep being gay, for some reason. Now, (this is the wierd part,) we have children biologically! Stupid car designers didn’t take into account that we would have more than four kids (all boys,) so I always keep one on the roof. Besides that, my salary is only $30,000 a year, and nobody ever spins a ten, so no additional income comes in! I’m forced to live in this Victorian mansion I cannot possibly afford, and buy stock in ONE on the NYSE. I want FIV, but all the shares are bought up. Fortunately, though, I live in a nice neighborhood with nice white bridges and trees that never go brown, and the streets are paved in multicolored concrete, giving a sickening happiness to the place. Don’t get me started on the bloody government regulations on employment, housing, and retirement! They assign me a job entirely by chance, and make me choose from three houses. One was just damaged by a quake, so that’s out of the question, another is a log cabin, which is too far away from the city to house a cop, and the other was my stupid Victorian. Another thing! They MAKE me retire in something, I don’t know, “Countryside Acres” or something. My fellow denizens feel the need to thumb their noses at me, just because THEY have a $100,000 salary! Some day I’ll land on a blue “Switch salaries with any player” square. Who’ll be laughing then! MUAHAHAHAHA! Man, I wish I’d gone to college so I wouldn’t have this stupid job. Perhaps I’ll have a midlife crisis and start a new career. The natural disasters are bad. Every couple of years, a large, colorful disc comes careening over the landscape, knocking out my male family clean off the world! They should get that fixed. On a good note, I did get my name on the high score list. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2001, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/47 "2001-09-02T04:38:37Z")
**Soup\_du\_jour** : I know _exactly_ how you feel. Every time I run down to the local convenience store, I have to explain to them why I don’t have any bills smaller than $1,000. ---
**Author:** ![letsbecrhistian2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ec9cab/32.png) [@letsbecrhistian2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/letsbecrhistian2)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/48 "2001-09-03T21:20:56Z")
I WANTED TO KNOW IF ANYONE CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION FOR ME. WHAT IS OUR SPIRIT AND IF SOME SAY ITS GODS ACTIVE FORCE, THEN HOW CAN A SPIRIT GRIEVE? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/49 "2001-09-03T21:23:02Z")
I hear sirens… ---
**Author:** ![letsbecrhistian2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ec9cab/32.png) [@letsbecrhistian2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/letsbecrhistian2)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/50 "2001-09-04T02:42:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*I hear sirens… \*\* IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU? THIS IS A VERY STRANGE BOARD…GOOD-DAY AND GOD BLESS TO EVERYONE HERE… ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/51 "2001-09-04T02:54:40Z")
> [@](#): > > IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU? THIS IS A VERY STRANGE BOARD…GOOD-DAY AND GOD BLESS TO EVERYONE HERE… Writing in all capitals is considered to be extremely annoying. Please, use normal punctuation here–we’ll hear you just fine. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/52 "2001-09-04T03:02:53Z")
Wow, **that** was weird. ---
**Author:** ![starryspice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@starryspice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starryspice)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/53 "2001-09-04T03:18:27Z")
## Sorry, haven’t read the whole thread but I had to add this to Tracer’s quote: quote: ## Why is the night sky dark? Because planets apparently tend to form in star systems with only one sun, meaning only one side of a planet will be brightly lit at any one time. Furthermore, the index of refraction of oxygen and nitrogen gas at 1 atmosphere ground-level pressure is too low to bend the sunlight around to the night side of the planet. (Note that this is not the case on Venus: the 90 atmosphere pressure carbon dioxide atmosphere bends the incoming sunlight so severely that the entire planetary surface is lit. Unfortunately, it’s also 900 degrees Fahrenheit and completely blanketed in sulfuric acid clouds, so life as we know it could not exist there.) Don’t forget that the night sky is also dark because the speed of light is finite. If it were infinite, the sky would be bright all the time. You may now return to your scheduled reading. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/54 "2001-09-04T03:22:11Z")
You know, you post a thread positing that the entire universe is a figment of a single consciousness who is using us as both a diversionary game and a means to solve a problem, and then you get some _wacko_ to mess it all up. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/55 "2001-09-04T03:39:09Z")
starryspice wrote: > [@](#): > > Don’t forget that the night sky is also dark because the speed of light is finite. If it were infinite, the sky would be bright all the time. Not nececelery. You seem to be referring to a conundrum called “Olber’s Paradox.” Olber reasoned that, if stars (or galaxies) are randomly distributed throughout the universe, and the universe is **infinitely vast** , and the light has had an infinite amount of time to reach us, then **everywhere you look** you should see the surface of a star. The whole sky should be as bright as the photosphere of the sun. The fact that the sky is not nearly this bright means that either the universe is **not** infinitely vast, or the universe is not infinitely old, or both. Current cosmological thinking is that both the age and the extent of the universe are finite. Having the speed of light be infinite would not, by itself, be enough to make the sky “bright all the time.” The universe would also have to be infinite in extent, and stars would have to be strewn thoughout this hypothetical infinitely-vast universe. ---
**Author:** ![starryspice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@starryspice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starryspice)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/56 "2001-09-04T19:29:23Z")
Oops, sorry Tracer. I knew that. :o ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Alex\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_B)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/57 "2001-09-04T20:54:10Z")
I just had this thought: There’s no one thing (or group of things) that all games have in common. Some, like chess, depend entirely on abstract rules which cannot be broken, where the challenge lies in using the rules as best as possible. In poker on the other hand, there is randomness involved, and the skill lies in bluffing, which is not part of the rules at all, which only define what hands beat what. Not all games are competitive: parlour games for example. I can’t think of a single necessary condition for something to be a game. **erislover** , if there’s no defining quality to a game, how can you claim that everything in life resembles one? Alex B ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2001, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/58 "2001-09-05T00:30:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alex B \* > I can’t think of a single necessary condition for something to be a game. **erislover** , if there’s no defining quality to a game, how can you claim that everything in life resembles one? Well, there’s more than a single condition; there’s quite a few. I would say that a game is a formalized or semi-formalized context where interaction follows predefined rules and which leads to a specific finishing point, goal, or event. [Merriam Webster](http://ww.m-w.com) has a few similar things to say: > [@](#): > > 1 a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement > 2 a : a procedure or strategy for gaining an end > 3 a (1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other (2) : a division of a larger contest And it really goes on even into some usages I don’t think I’ve ever used or heard used. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Alex\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_B)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2001, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/59 "2001-09-05T19:25:23Z")
From **erislover** > [@](#): > > I would say that a game is a formalized or semi-formalized context where interaction follows predefined rules and which leads to a specific finishing point, goal, or event. If that’s the case, than lots of aspects of life do not fall under that definition. Much of the activity of my life fails to comply with being conducted any kind of rule (bar the laws of physics) and is not aimed at any goal. Alex B ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2001, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865/60 "2001-09-05T20:02:49Z")
**Alex** , my friend, when you aren’t playing the game, you’re a piece inside of one (actually, you’re always a piece inside of one, but sometimes you get to play, too). And what’s wrong with the laws of physics being rules? That’s fundamental, there. Much like the physics engine of any regular old video game, it sets the pace for the competition. Perhaps it would help me if you explained such a situation. As you may have noted, I personally couldn’t think of an activity that wasn’t gamelike; you are welcome to bring one to light for me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erislovers-witnessing-thread/78865.md?page=4)