Whatever phenomenon you take, it proceeds in accordance to math and mathematically follows from previous mathematical conditions (we call initial conditions). And rules (=natural laws) are mathematical consequence of a few fundamental mathematical symmetries.

Where do you see "human concept" here? Lets take an example of electron "creating" a photon. Sure you believe that a photon is an object which exist out there in physical world "by itself" and we, humans just "describe" it mathematically, and all the math does - it describes by numbers what "already exists" out there.

Not true. The existense of a photon is just mathematical consequence of existense of electron (electric charge, actually). Electrons jump in atoms from one state to another but because they are orbiting nucleus they temporaly have their electric field oscillating - and we call this oscillating electric field "a photon". And all properties of a photon: color (=energy), wavelength (distance an electric field propagates in one oscillation of electron), photon's coherence length (=longitudinal size of a photon =total length of electric field wave bunch, till electron settles on another energy level)-they all mathematically follow from properties of oscillating electron. Where is "human construct" here - it is purely mathematical process of a "birth" of an oscillating electric field which we happen to label "a photon"? Only in calling this process "birth of a photon".

This mathematical process existed well before humans ever came to existence (and some started to claim that they "invented" math). You can see photons from galaxies billions light-years away.

And all known processes in universe are similar mathematical (=logical) processes we happen to call "objects" (photons, electrons, etc), "interactions", "laws of nature", etc.

Nothing to do with humans/aliens, or with human perceptions, feelings, philosophies, etc. Not to say about mythical gods or some other "creatures" we try to put behind mathematical phenomena.

• Your system relies on distinction - dolphin - September 15, 2001 - 21:59 UTC
  • Not true. - alexander - September 17, 2001 - 18:28 UTC
    • The scope of math - harvey1 - September 17, 2001 - 21:34 UTC
      • Well, one could make the argument... - stormcrow - September 17, 2001 - 21:59 UTC
        • Everything else follows from math. - alexander - September 17, 2001 - 22:57 UTC
          • Alex and I never seem to agree on anything.... - smartguy - September 18, 2001 - 00:42 UTC
          • Beyond Math - dolphin - September 18, 2001 - 15:28 UTC
            • But this is incomplete..... - smartguy - September 18, 2001 - 18:20 UTC
              • Sure, we need to study the whole system - dolphin - September 18, 2001 - 23:15 UTC
          • Everything Else follows from Math - petersand - September 18, 2001 - 18:44 UTC
        • We could make that argument, but... - harvey1 - September 18, 2001 - 05:04 UTC
          • Whaaaaa? - smartguy - September 18, 2001 - 19:16 UTC
            • Not what I'm talking about - harvey1 - September 18, 2001 - 20:41 UTC
      • Math is the same in all universes - yanniru - September 18, 2001 - 14:13 UTC
        • Math isn't fully reduced - dolphin - September 18, 2001 - 21:54 UTC
          • Math Isn't Fully reduced - petersand - September 21, 2001 - 20:33 UTC
            • Eyes wide open - dolphin - September 25, 2001 - 10:20 UTC
              • Eyes Wide Open - petersand - September 27, 2001 - 18:17 UTC
    • misunderstanding - dolphin - September 18, 2001 - 14:08 UTC