No, it's not a joke. My definition alluded to other articles I've written which elaborate on the terms I used. Which terms do you think are "meaningless twaddle"?

What you say about physicalism isn't relevant to the point I was making about the strangeness of order in a godless universe. But you also overstate your case because the commitments of physicalism are controversial, as you can tell from the introduction to the "physicalism" articles on Wikipedia or in the Stanford encyclopedia.

The Wiki article says, for example, that 'physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.'

So physicalism is consistent with the supervenience thesis, which means nonphysical layers can emerge from the physical as long as they're dependent on the physical. The higher levels would be nonphysical in that the special sciences or philosophies would have to explain those patterns. Direct physical explanations of the higher levels would be unmanageable. Psychology might posit the mind because there's no practicable physicist explanation of mental patterns.

Thus, physicalism can be true even if "consciousness" isn't found directly in physics, because neural nomic relations can supervene on physical ones (via chemistry).