>>14984351

The answer I want to give is that physicists implicitly work within the framework of math. They assume mathematical facts are objectively true, and from that implicit order, figure they can make sense of the material universe. In a sense, math does the same "job" as god, being a timeless metaphysical from which truth and order can not only be derived, but must abide by because they're synonymous.

By contrast, mathematicians study math itself. They're more intimately familiar with its shortcomings, and alternative systems of doing math. They're more likely realize that mathematical principles aren't a sufficient substitute for even deeper metaphysical ones that sometimes approximate religion.

>Why 'x' ?

>Physicist: Because [physical principle]

>Why [physical principle]?

>Physicist: Because [mathematical principle]

>Why [mathematical principle]?

>Physicist: Eh, that's just how it is. It's the only way it can be.

>Mathematician: Actually no, that's not the ONLY way it could be. The fact that we do math in this particular way and it happens to work out is a total fuckin crapshoot. So, idk, god?

I think it's important to add that the epistemic foundations of science are slightly different from math. Science assumes that 'THE truth' exists, and can be known, at least in part. Mathematical 'truths' are only true in so far that the axiomatic assumptions they're deduced from are true.

I want to say all that. But if "god" actually refers to a specific (abrahamic) god, then the other anons are probably right. Mathematicians are easier to delude because they don't engage with reality.