Message from @Riley
Discord ID: 646055169452146725
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."
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
We judge better and worse
Against what
Implying there must be something absolutely best/good
As a standard
they are relative to other things in our enviroment
not really
lets go back to circles