Do not you understand that axioms are our best knowledge of fundamentals?

Many years ago axioms were natural places (or natural states of motion/rest), yesterday axioms were conservation laws, today - symmetries from which conservation laws mathematically follow, tomorrow we trace symmetries mathematically to supersymmetry, then to more fundamental phenomena and so on.

How can you define current fundamentals if you do not know yet more fundamental things the current fundamentals mathematically follow from? We (scientists) are working on it. So, knowledge is always increasing, not decreasing. Tomorrow we tell you why space and time is symmetric. Mathematically, of course, as it always was before. (And then you once again try to incert god(s) right in front of known fundamentals, will you? Come on, I believe you are educated fellow and understand that universe is strictly physical (=mathematical) and attempts to insert superstitions in it are doomed (as it always was before) and are , softly speaking, as childish as insisting in belief in Santa Clause "now the toy factory builder" after you were told how toys are made and delivered. (To only later, when you were told how the factory was built, shift you belief in favor of Santa Claus "the brick and concrete creator"?)

• This is not strengthening your argument - harvey1 - October 26, 2001 - 19:18 UTC