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?

>>26
So in that sense math has nothing to do with what reality is. It's just a tool that can be used to describe and predict things that seem to always happen in it.
I'm not so sure. Reality could just be math seen from the inside (such is the hypothesis of Schmidhuber or Tegmark). If reality isn't that, what do you think it is?
Also, if you think "mind uploading" is possible theoretically or practically (sometime in the distant future), that is, if you admit a Turing-emulable substitution, it can be shown that the ontology becomes more or less fixed to any computationally universal system(one can't distinguish between them), see http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html for an example.
So I'd be careful when saying reality and math have nothing to do with each other, unless you're just the type who doesn't want to ask that question ("what is 'fundamental' reality?")