SumitThis is a term I don’t understand because I thought it meant something like a “do not break the law” clause. It doesn’t. It means the laws of physics that govern certain things like this won’t apply. It also means that there is no reason for people to break the laws of physics by breaking things that are hard to break.
But then again, there is. For example, if an apple falls from a tree that’s not in a tree and is on an un-treed patch of ground (a tree that’s tall enough that the apple falls as if it were in a tree), then it will most likely continue to fall. And if it falls from a tall, un-treed patch of ground, it will most likely fall as if it were in a tree.
The reason to break the laws of physics and break it up into parts is because there is a reason for it. As soon as you break the laws of physics, you break the laws of physics. You can break the laws of physics by doing things like breaking the laws of physics.
The reason for this is that when you break the laws of physics, the laws of physics break too. This doesn’t break the laws of physics, but it does break the laws of physics. The reason for this is because the laws of physics cannot explain why something happens.
Laws of physics are laws that have been created for the sole purpose of explaining a certain set of things. The reason why something would be breaking the laws of physics is because something else in the universe, wasnt working properly. It is the same reason why something in the universe, would break the laws of physics. When you break the laws of physics, part of the universe, ceases to exist.
So if you can’t explain why something happens, it doesn’t matter if it can. Thats why I say the reason why people say the laws of physics are useless is because they don’t matter, because they have no reality.
A little more than a year ago, we published our analysis of the estoppel clause. The estoppel clause says “if you cant explain why something happens, it doesnt matter if it can.” But many people ignore that fact that the laws of physics are not just the laws that we know about, but the laws that we cant explain. In the case of the estoppel clause, the laws of physics that we can’t explain are the laws of math.
Since the estoppel clause is a law of physics, if you can show why it means what it means, you can actually change the law, and be able to prove your point. So in a sense, if you can show that something is impossible, then you can in effect prove that it is impossible. That’s why the estoppel clause is so powerful. If you can show that something is impossible, then you can actually change the law.
The law of math is the law of the universe, and the reason why I hate this argument is because I don’t think it can be proved. This is true of any mathematical argument, and the more we know about it, the more we can reason about it, the more we can change it, and the more we can change it we can change it.
Now, it is true that the law of math is the law of the universe. But what I really hate about this argument is that it is only true for things that are mathematical. Not for things that are physical, not for things that are abstract. If you can prove that something is an impossibility, then it is true.
