[paganel]

> but because we aren't answering questions in the domain of mathematics.

And then one can ask “what is the domain of mathematics?” or even “does mathematics have a domain?”, questions which lead us into a “philosophy of science” discussion with no end in sight.

I’ve felt for quite some time that the fact that mathematics can model/answer some aspects related to physical reality is just a happy coincidence at best, which we shouldn’t insist too much upon, for fear of then risking to miss the forest because of some trees that absorb our view, like “isn’t this mathematical equation perfectly describing how galaxies interact billions of light-years away?” might obstruct from us the very dire truth that there is no math to describe what will be my cat’s movings around the room in the next 5 minutes (and it’s not for lack of trying, just look at the billions of dollars invested by hedge-funds into mathematics so that they could “model”/predict the future; I don’t think they’re scientifically anywhere close to that).

[taoistextremist]

> And then one can ask “what is the domain of mathematics?” or even “does mathematics have a domain?”, questions which lead us into a “philosophy of science” discussion with no end in sight.

I think these are useful conversations even if we can't foresee them ending. It's what's helped us move physics beyond stuff like Newtonian mechanics where we expect things to line up with these nice equations, and apply math in a more appropriate fashion to our observations. i.e. We treat math as something we apply to our observations, and reconsider models as we run into problems, as opposed to demanding our observations line up with our initial model.