I think the opposite is the case. Most materialist (atheist) philosophers do not acknowledge the ontological existence of math(i.e., mathematical order of the universe). The reason is that 'order' itself is immaterial and most closely associated with the concept of God.
Your view is much closer to theism than you realize.

But, taking this one step further, since you have a strong reductionist stance with the laws of physics as emerging from mathematical order, this would suggest that physical laws are epiphenomena. For example, 'mind' is often cited to be an epiphenomena of brain states since it these folks say that there is a one-to-one correspondence between brain state and the state of mind. Hence, mind is not 'real' it is only an epiphenomena. This is the strong reductionist thesis (which seems you subscribe).

If you really do see the laws of physics as an epiphenomena of some basic mathematical symmetries arising from some immaterial order (or 'spooky' order if you will), then this would imply that this 'spooky' order can influence the world in a non-physical science manner.

Alex, I realize this is outside the scope of what you are ready to accept (and you'll come right back with 'math is 1=yes, 0=no'), but to those who can see what I'm saying, they can see how your naive realism can easily be converted into a theistic outlook.

Warm regards, Harv

• God is not physical? And it does not physically govern things? - alexander - May 3, 2001 - 22:04 UTC
  • I thought we were talking about theism - harvey1 - May 4, 2001 - 14:50 UTC
    • So, u may see that there is nothing non-mathematical in universe - alexander - May 5, 2001 - 00:36 UTC
      • I see your game - harvey1 - May 5, 2001 - 14:10 UTC
      • your missing something - isaiaha41 - May 7, 2001 - 11:29 UTC
        • it is nonsense to ask about math existence. - alexander - May 7, 2001 - 16:13 UTC
        • clarification - harvey1 - May 7, 2001 - 16:30 UTC
          • But don't you still need someone to "do the math"? (nt) - paulm - May 7, 2001 - 18:08 UTC
          • no - harvey1 - May 7, 2001 - 19:04 UTC
            • I think you do. - paulm - May 7, 2001 - 23:36 UTC
              • Very common mistake. - alexander - May 8, 2001 - 00:22 UTC
                • Let's define 'rules' - paulm - May 8, 2001 - 00:48 UTC
                  • Right in the axioms. - alexander - May 8, 2001 - 03:25 UTC
                    • Those axioms are insufficient - paulm - May 8, 2001 - 18:44 UTC
                      • Sorry, but all math and geometries are based on the same axiom - alexander - May 8, 2001 - 22:43 UTC
                        • You are repeating yourself - paulm - May 9, 2001 - 05:16 UTC
                  • Difficult to define rules - harvey1 - May 8, 2001 - 23:01 UTC
                    • Hoyle has done it - paulm - May 9, 2001 - 00:02 UTC
              • More clarification - harvey1 - May 8, 2001 - 22:35 UTC
                • Oops! Sp correction - harvey1 - May 8, 2001 - 22:41 UTC
                • More yet - paulm - May 9, 2001 - 06:30 UTC
                • re: more yet - harvey1 - May 9, 2001 - 17:47 UTC
                  • I may be confused by 'instantiates' - paulm - May 9, 2001 - 21:13 UTC
                    • A trip down an endless road - harvey1 - May 11, 2001 - 00:03 UTC
          • other parallels? - isaiaha41 - May 8, 2001 - 11:36 UTC
            • re: Truth - harvey1 - May 8, 2001 - 23:29 UTC