we don't have a complete theory of quantum gravity

All concepts of space and time break down at the singularity

so we can't make predictions

its more accurate to say that the laws of physics break down

or become incompatible with eachother

general relativity and quantum field theory

they begin to class when we talk about singularities

Laws of physics are supposed to be unbreakable, no?

they don't "break"

what i mean is they don't work together

which is why we need to create a theory of quantum gravity8

And laws of physics also stop working at the atomic level

no, they dont

Whatever

Why do some particles not move when your looking at them

but anywho

the five ways

Not religious but im just curious about it

what

Why do some particles not move when your looking at them

why would they move

im confusi

There is a certain thing, I'd need to look it up as I've forgotten, but something in motion will not move when you're looking at it

And keep moving when you don't

The Zero Effect

you must be thinking of heisenbergs uncertainty principle

"One of the oddest predictions of quantum theory – that a system can't change while you're watching it – has been confirmed in an experiment by Cornell physicists."

ΔxΔp ≥ (ℏ/2)

I'm not a mathmatician

Anyways back to 5 says

o

@The Desert Fox V take over I need to go to class

<:ket:586968975619915779>

"We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc. For example, well-drawn circles are better than poorly drawn ones, healthy animals are better than sick animals. Moreover, some substances are better than others, since living things are better than non-living things, and animals are better than plants, in testimony of which no one would choose to lose their senses for the sake of having the longevity of a tree. But judging something as being "more" or "less" implies some standard against which it is being judged. For example in a room full of people of varying heights, at least one must be tallest. Therefore, there is something which is best and most true, and most a being, etc. Aquinas then adds the premise: what is most in a genus is the cause of all else in that genus. From this he deduces that there exists some most-good being which causes goodness in all else, and this everyone understands to be God."

why are well-drawn circles better than poorly drawn ones

there is no objective "better"

You just said a poorly drawn circle, you admit yourself it's worse

and once again

Unless you imply there is no difference between a perfect and imperfect circle

how did he determine that this is god

like bruh