Zenir

While I do not doubt your prowess, there is a simple philosophy which I belive you can agree with. Descarte said one of the more famous philosophical quotes 'I think therefore I am' describing many things, however, it does say that reality is defined by perspective and of anyone here I would believe you would understand that. The relavation between relativistic physics and mechanic physics is just an arbitrary example, a poor one, but one. For the sake of simplicity I will answer your question as ochams razor would have us. There is one object on the table as the water is on the glass on the table. Or perhaps the fishbowl is merely considered a whole much like my favored spherical cow (refering to the simplification of extraneous variables for the sake of a more simplistic and closed system.) One a side note might I suggest someone use ochams' razor as part of their arguement against a higher being creating a sterile number 'phi'

I believe math to be everywhere as much as anything else is. The greeks and romans beleived that numbers were holy also and it prevented them (most often times) from exploring the extensions of mathematics. I am an Atheist I could care less if there was a god, for if there is one, he is natural and therefore not god to top it off if he is, he doesn't want us to know so it shouldn't relate to us eitehr way, if there isn't then it doesn't matter. Saying there is a god, it would make more sense that this is a blind study where he doesn't want us to act as if he's there. He wants us to act of our own voalition.

To be honest many of the worlds greatest mathematicians and physics professors were religious.

There is also a big difference between the scientific method and mathematical definitions. Math is not defined on what we see, merely on it's pre-ordained (or posibly soon revised) axioms. Then often times science can relate to math for help with verification. To be honest however I believe that it is entertaining that we are arguing the physical existence of Phi. There are many irrational numbers and often times they are found in very beautiful ways, this beauty though is not inherent, it is what we apply to it in trying to comprehend the idea of the value. Infinity is a difficult comprehension.

I would also like to argue that infinity is not impossible in reality. I do not recall who claimed that an infinite amount of particles in a particle which are infitely smaller is not infinite. While it leads to the relation of infinity/infinity it could also be looked at as a 'simple' irrational number, could it not?

__________________
Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success.-Albert Schweitzer, philosopher, physician, musician, Nobel laureate
(1875-1965)