>>22
Your "proof" is based on the assumption that you can actually prove things. Fun fact: The only thing you can prove without a doubt is that you cannot prove anything besides this without a doubt.

Think about it:

1. You obviously cannot trust your senses, they fool you all the time (Optical illusions etc...).
2. Because of 1), any proof that is based on observation can be doubted.
3. The only thing you can prove without observation, only using logic, is that you can doubt everything besides your doubt.

Side thoughts:
Logic does not help you here at all. Logic needs observations to prove anything besides 3)

Laws of mathematics are a definition. Nothing. More. If I wanted to make new laws of mathematics, I would just have to get enough people to believe me.

Laws of physics are all models based on observation. Basically, someone guessed that something might behave in a certain way, and since things actually behaved that way, people called it a Law.

Fucking little boys was generally considered to be ok in ancient rome (In most asian countries 100-1000 years ago too, I think). Modern western "Laws" of morality are something that developed out of christian religion sometime in the last 2000 years.

And yes, I do base my actions on math and physics, but this doesn't change anything. You still can't prove those. You can only hope that they are indeed correct.