How do you know you're not calculating in your head all the variables involved ? If calculating is taking variables into account and producing a result, then you're definitely calculating, except variables aren't expressed anywhere as numbers (neither are they in microprocessors, since they're electrical impulses, by the way). The bumblebees are moving, and then the scientist interpets their movement as calculus. Nature doesn't need numbers. Seeing numbers is a human-specific way of thinking (dividing and measuring things) that comes from conciousness (me vs around me, which means I am separated from other things, things can be separated, individualized, counted, etc...). We can see numbers in anything, so, when you're catching a ball, you're calculating in a way... It's both calculating (from a human point of view), and not calculating (from a holistic point of view). That's my point of view...

You don't have to adopt a religion to believe that there is a single (conscious or not) cause to everything (call it God, Tao, exception, paradox, singularity, triggerOfBigBang, whatever).
I personally think that God is one special idea that comes with conscience, and that it's not by chance : maybe conscience is linked to what matter really is, and what matter really is comes from the cause of everything. In short, conscience is part of the nature of the-cause-to-everything (call it like you want). In shorter, the cause of everything is conscious... because we all are conscious that there is a cause to everything.

I don't personally think this belief makes me a "religious" person. And I don't think it's very different from deciding that 2 parallels never cross.

One other "belief" of this kind is that a very intelligent water molecule (or a human) cannot understand that the brand of the opaque plastic bottle it's in, is Evian... it can understand it's inside a bottle (universe) and that the boundaries are weird (limits imposed by physical laws like speed of light, and the paradox that the universe expands "inside nothing"), but it cannot know what a brand is (it's very different from what he sees inside).

Maybe logic is a purely human (and not universal) way of understanding. It's sufficient for human (and rational) way of knowing. But I think human has also the ability to explore other ways of understanding. And I think rational and simple and intuitive things (like deciding that 2 parallels never cross, or that there is a conscious cause to everything) can coexist in a healthy human mind, like it is the case for many scientists, in their personal life.

Don't we ourselves, computer scientists, create artificial worlds where we trigger like a Big Bang for artificial lifeforms ? We are just mimicking what we already "know". Why is it so hard to admit it ?

I think it's not reasonable to be too reasonable.
Please search for "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" in Wikipedia. This is the title of an article published in 1960 by the physicist Eugene Wigner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

Imagine this in a somewhat futuristic mafia movie, in a carefully planned gangland killing scene...

I totally agree. Moreover, what is this "cloud" everyone keeps talking of ? Is it a bunch of corporations dividing their world (the web) into slices / market share, sharing your data between themselves, using it as a currency ? We all know that there are 2 kinds of currencies on the web : data and audience. Google invented nothing really new here with this Chrome platform : They just carefully selected where your data will be stored : On their servers. They're trying to shrink the web to a bunch of big actors, exactly like what was done with territory during the Yalta conference (february 1945) after WWII. They want everyone to adopt this platform by simplifying user experience, and more precisely by simplifying his thinking : They don't want the user to bother about data storage. It would indeed be nice not to worry about data storage, and actually, it can be done without giving all the data to one company. There's just another way of making data persistent on the internet : Think of Freenet and other systems like that. Your data is stored everywhere, as encrypted chunks of data, replicated, on a good number of users computers (a bit like an encrypted RAID5 system on the internet). Your data is replicated closer to where it's more frequently (and heavily) accessed. And for some of your data, you don't want it to be replicated everywhere, so you have to host this kind of data (private data, and also public but frequently updated data). The internet could be a platform where every point (PCs, laptops, smartphones, microwaves ovens, whatever) could be a unit of storage, routing / load balancing, computing, input/output & application server... and all these points could cooperate making a uniform system thanks to standards. Actually, today's internet has all the infrastructure to become such a P2P platform. I prefer to see the future of internet as not too cloudy. I vote against Google's "cloud". I vote for everyone's peer-to-peer internet.

Give me a near-DVD quality, a price lower than DVD machines, and a foolproof system, for example with a URL/key/whatever that's valid during a certain time lapse (at least 5 hours), and maybe it can work. Also I find that going out to the cinema is fun, and I'm not going to stop watching movies this way. Fun is not always staying at home in front of the computer. And please don't advertise about watching movies on a cellphone.

Amstrad CPC 464 ? 6128 maybe ?