Belief is a human concept (belief=accepting without proof). I do not accept anything without proof, thus have no beliefs to shadow my mind. I state facts: natural laws come from symmetries regardless if there are humans, aliens, observers, no observers, etc. and regardless that some observers have belief in god(s), some in santas, some in no evolution. Also regardless how u label relationships between symmetries and natural laws (what notation one uses).

So, it is just a philosophical discussion about how to label reactions of our senses on the physical processes . I do not want to be involved into swampy inconsistency of philosophy with its lack of clear definitions and (frequent) lack of logic.

I do not like when people can not even define what they discuss. Because in most cases the problem would end right there - with clear definition.

Talking about human senses and mental models can be endless unless you clearly define things like reality, model(s), thoughts, perception, consciousenes/subconsciouseness, natural/ supernatural, truth,... etc, and unless you use logic in discussion.

I simply do not feel that talking about opinions, tastes and feelings WITHOUT clearly defined things is any productive.

And again, I do not have any belief (=accepting with no proof). Vice versa, mathematics had been PROVEN to be correct in shaping objects of the universe and in describing/predicting FACTS of their interactions many times over and over and overwelmingly accurate.

Math is probably the only discipline in which PROOF is a law. Nothing is left to faith (=accepting with no proof). Unlike any religion.