Physics is shit

So you have this gravity law. But does particle attract itself?

I.e. does it work like (mapcar (lambda (X) (gravity X Xs)) Xs) or X should be excluded from Xs, before gravity applies?

>>16
It should be possible to have a quantized version. There's no real need for actual 'particles', 'particles' are just an emergent concept which sometimes breaks down in certain context. It's all math down there, the only question is 'which math'. I'm not betting on actual infinitesimals existing ontologically, but using reals allows for us to have simpler models until we find a more accurate discrete one. It's a shame not enough physicists care about the math they're using in their theories. I conjecture that you don't need anything more than arithmetic (with its countable infinity) and 1st-person indeterminacy (mind) to describe physics (this is automatically true if we admit a digital substition (as in, if mind uploads are possible) and arithmetic is consistent).