On 8 Feb 2005 at 1:31, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 07 Feb 2005, at 8:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > >> You don't think basketball commentators (and coaches, and players) > >> talk about angle, rebounds, arcs, etc? > > > > That's not physics, except using a rather debased definition of it > > that includes just about anything involving motion. > > David, that's just about the most ridiculous excuse for an argument > I've ever heard. "Debased" physics? Because it "includes just about > anything involving motion"? David, what do you think Newtonian > physics *is*?? And basketball/golf/pool players never think about > physics???? Fercrisskaes, pool is nothing *but* applied physics. > > Please explain how you would build a pool-playing robot without > including some sort of physics module in the AI.
A human pool player is not a pool-playing robot. And that's the whole point. Human beings do not think of equations and physics when they move -- they just move. Physics is involved, but not at any conscious level, and not at any significant level. Your observation applies to *any* human action. I'm typing right now, which involves the physics of the design of my computer keyboard, as well as calculation of movements of my hands and arms and so forth. But that's trivial, and not a significant part of the act of typing. And if physics is not significant to typing, how can it be significant to art? -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
