If mathematics is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. That is, if mathematics dictates the existence and behavior quarks as a whole, and it also dictates the existence and behavior of nuclei as a whole, and it also dictates the existence and behavior of atoms as a whole, then what prevents mathematics from dictating your behavior and what you say as a whole?

Warm regards, Harv

• Math works for all systems. Microscopic, macro, etc. - alexander - January 17, 2002 - 20:12 UTC
  • So... - harvey1 - January 17, 2002 - 20:35 UTC
    • Symmetries. - alexander - January 17, 2002 - 20:48 UTC
      • My point is... - harvey1 - January 17, 2002 - 21:05 UTC
        • It probably can be derived too. - alexander - January 17, 2002 - 22:03 UTC
          • Two ways of approaching this - harvey1 - January 17, 2002 - 22:21 UTC
            • I really do not understand this. - alexander - January 17, 2002 - 22:43 UTC
              • Do you agree that... - harvey1 - January 17, 2002 - 23:13 UTC
                • Galaxies are not identical, like particles. - alexander - January 18, 2002 - 00:15 UTC
              • That's not the point, though - harvey1 - January 18, 2002 - 17:25 UTC
                • Harvey, you are again incorrect. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 22:07 UTC
              • What a single principle gives you - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 14:37 UTC
                • Correction.Least action principle follows from f=ma,not vicevers - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 18:20 UTC
              • re: least action principle - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 22:33 UTC
                • Please, define energy (or action) without dp/dt. - alexander - January 24, 2002 - 06:35 UTC
            • We've lost our math HTML tags - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 13:59 UTC