Because othervise they have to admit that they were wrong believing in various Santa Clause(s) (like Zeus, Allah, Jahove, etc.).

But is not it makes you look dumb (or stupid, or primitive - feel free to label) if you disagree with FACTS (that ALL KNOWN PROCESSES in universe go as PRESCRIBED by mathematical laws (which we historically call natural laws, because we did not know their origin in the past) and which (natural laws) originate from various mathematical symmetries)?

If there is no room for gods, spirits, demons, etc in all known processes (and never were, by the way) - does not it looks not very "cool" to be ignorant and to insist that there is influence of god(s) in known phenomena? Is not is the same to saying that Ra pushes Sun across sky, or Zeus shoots sparks, for example - (or to saying that some "Big Being" somehow blowed the Big Bang all over the universe (say, by breathing vacuum in and in a sudden powerful blow breathing it out)?

Is it more cool in being ignorant, than in acknowledging that all known processes in universe go naturally (=by math rules)?

• I don't think you understand the point - harvey1 - October 29, 2001 - 20:53 UTC
  • You mean mathematical cause? - alexander - October 29, 2001 - 21:18 UTC
    • So you agree with Aristotle? - harvey1 - October 29, 2001 - 21:26 UTC
      • If it means logic (=math), then it IS the reason things go the - alexander - October 29, 2001 - 23:21 UTC
        • But, what about the axioms? - harvey1 - October 29, 2001 - 23:25 UTC
          • Well, so far there were no mysteries. - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 00:35 UTC
            • Here's why - harvey1 - October 30, 2001 - 02:37 UTC
            • Where does it all end? - smartguy - October 30, 2001 - 02:39 UTC
              • One caveat - harvey1 - October 30, 2001 - 02:55 UTC
                • Harvey, so far no god(s) were found in many millenia quest. - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 16:19 UTC
                  • I don't think so - harvey1 - October 30, 2001 - 16:35 UTC
                    • I would surely welcome such god (call it math, or nature). - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 17:00 UTC
                      • re: the Logos - harvey1 - October 30, 2001 - 17:22 UTC
                        • L:ife existence depends on initial conditions. - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 18:12 UTC
                          • Reduce further - harvey1 - October 30, 2001 - 19:04 UTC
                            • Remember the position of a wave (mathematical uncertainty) - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 20:53 UTC
                              • Schrodinger's equation - harvey1 - October 30, 2001 - 21:28 UTC
                                • No, because actually SE follows from UP. - alexander - October 31, 2001 - 17:36 UTC
                              • So are you saying - harvey1 - October 31, 2001 - 20:59 UTC
                                • Harvey, position and momentum ARE uncertain at ANY level. - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 18:11 UTC
                              • Huh? - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 19:50 UTC
                                • Classic position and momentum are not entangled. - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 09:51 UTC
                              • In that case - harvey1 - November 5, 2001 - 20:35 UTC
                      • I still wonder - aximili - November 1, 2001 - 04:46 UTC
                        • Mathematical symmetries. - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 18:16 UTC
                        • Mathematical symmetries. - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 18:16 UTC
                      • I still wonder - aximili - November 1, 2001 - 04:48 UTC
  • God vs. the Photon - luis_hamburgh - October 30, 2001 - 00:05 UTC
    • A photon is simply electric field of accelerating charge. - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 01:49 UTC
      • Strike One - luis_hamburgh - October 30, 2001 - 04:24 UTC
        • Is that right? - bruce - October 30, 2001 - 04:45 UTC
          • Detection theory - yanniru - October 30, 2001 - 15:11 UTC
            • Richard, you should take QED equation of charge. - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 16:33 UTC
              • Lorentz Transformations??? - luis_hamburgh - October 30, 2001 - 22:52 UTC
          • Not even close. - luis_hamburgh - October 30, 2001 - 22:47 UTC
            • The post above this one is for Bruce's Photoelectric response - luis_hamburgh - October 30, 2001 - 23:03 UTC
        • Luis, long ago in college we did "counting photons" lab. - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 16:29 UTC
          • STRIKE TWO! - luis_hamburgh - October 30, 2001 - 22:59 UTC
            • So, what knocks electron out of an atom when light hits it? - alexander - October 31, 2001 - 02:28 UTC
              • The atoms are quantized to begin with - yanniru - October 31, 2001 - 15:41 UTC
                • E/m field is quantizied (=photon exists in a vacuum too). - alexander - October 31, 2001 - 19:47 UTC
                  • Strike Три !!! - luis_hamburgh - October 31, 2001 - 23:59 UTC
                    • Luis! - harvey1 - November 1, 2001 - 15:16 UTC
                      • Racial slur? - luis_hamburgh - November 2, 2001 - 01:03 UTC
                        • I thought about it later - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 03:00 UTC
                    • Luis, I am really very sorry - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 18:49 UTC
                      • Go back to the dugout - luis_hamburgh - November 2, 2001 - 22:33 UTC
                        • What then "interferes" in Michelson interferometer? - alexander - November 3, 2001 - 17:57 UTC
                • Thank you Richard - luis_hamburgh - October 31, 2001 - 23:45 UTC
                  • Background - yanniru - November 1, 2001 - 15:18 UTC
                    • Anticlimax - luis_hamburgh - November 2, 2001 - 01:09 UTC
                      • Luis, lack of arguments? - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 19:26 UTC
                        • Alex, is it possible... - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 19:56 UTC
                          • Harv, this guy is no professor - luis_hamburgh - November 2, 2001 - 22:48 UTC
                            • I don't that's the case - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 23:15 UTC
                              • s/b: I don't think that it is the case (nt) - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 23:16 UTC
                              • He can't even explain... - luis_hamburgh - November 3, 2001 - 15:19 UTC
                                • Luis, one should be as dumb as only you can be - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 09:19 UTC
                                  • It is all elementary - yanniru - November 5, 2001 - 15:22 UTC
                    • richard, PhD in e/magn should know how light (and brain) works. - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 19:10 UTC
                      • Sante Fe Institute - yanniru - November 3, 2001 - 17:45 UTC
                        • This would explain a lot - luis_hamburgh - November 4, 2001 - 16:17 UTC
                          • Luis, according to you replies you still live in dark ages. - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 10:08 UTC
                        • Richard, wake up - quantum electrodynamics is 50 years old. - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 09:59 UTC
    • Luis try this... It may work better - smartguy - October 30, 2001 - 03:05 UTC
      • Casimir effect - bruce - October 30, 2001 - 03:30 UTC
  • Primitive Gods and Maths really are similar, - philosofir - October 30, 2001 - 01:44 UTC
• Alex... You believe in God and don't even realize it... - smartguy - October 29, 2001 - 21:23 UTC
  • He he - harvey1 - October 29, 2001 - 21:42 UTC
  • No, there is HUGE difference between math and gods. - alexander - October 29, 2001 - 23:38 UTC
    • Alex, you're saying that there can be no "platonic" free-will? - smartguy - October 30, 2001 - 01:17 UTC
      • If that were so, why so much craziness? why? - philosofir - October 30, 2001 - 02:05 UTC
      • By unpredictability of acts of mythical gods I mean - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 02:12 UTC
        • Entanglement? - yanniru - October 30, 2001 - 15:16 UTC
          • Entangled particles DO obey all natural laws. - alexander - October 30, 2001 - 16:43 UTC
            • They do not obey the laws of general relativity - yanniru - October 31, 2001 - 15:59 UTC
              • Really? What exactly they do not obey? - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 10:10 UTC
                • EPR paradox - yanniru - November 6, 2001 - 14:59 UTC
  • Thanks, everyone for a great conversation, but... - pmartin - October 30, 2001 - 17:21 UTC
• The Unexisting Entity - elgypsy - October 30, 2001 - 02:05 UTC
  • I think it (creation) is random event as prescribed by math. - alexander - October 31, 2001 - 03:48 UTC
• Chess goes without players? - dolphin - October 30, 2001 - 09:22 UTC