[ladyattis]

I think the fact that the oddest approaches work aren't exactly a measure of how the particles actually work in physics. I think it proves that math isn't the language of the universe no matter how much mathematicians and physicists want to say it is. It just proves we're good at modeling but not good enough to actually know what we're seeing/measuring (a natural limit to our knowledge). I don't know why this position is considered controversial or out of the mainstream when it seems to be the logical answer.

[naasking]

I don't see why it's logical to conclude that difficulties modeling hard problems means we can't model them using math. These difficulties are not uncommon in the history of science, and we've eventually solved them all before with math, and we should expect such problems to become more and more difficult as the low hanging fruit has been plucked. I see literally no reason to jump to the conclusion that the core problem is trying to use math at all.

[ladyattis]

>I don't see why it's logical to conclude that difficulties modeling hard problems means we can't model them using math.

That's not what I'm stating though. I'm stating that the math involved is a model but it isn't ever going to be identical to the thing being modeled. Meaning that math isn't the "language of nature" as we don't have a direct means to truly comprehend it (direct realism has a whole has been discarded by philosophers for a long time now).

>I see literally no reason to jump to the conclusion that the core problem is trying to use math at all.

Again, that's not what I said, please read my post again.

[naasking]

> I'm stating that the math involved is a model but it isn't ever going to be identical to the thing being modeled.

I don't know what "identical" means in this context. Either a mathematical model can capture all of the information in the system, or it can't. We know that we can reproduce a function on a long enough timeline just by observing its outputs via Solomonoff Induction.

The only escape hatch here is if reality has incomputable features. There's no evidence of this at this time. That's why it's confusing that you would go from "we have persistent hard problems" to "mathematical models can't exactly correspond to reality".

[ladyattis]

>That's why it's confusing that you would go from "we have persistent hard problems" to "mathematical models can't exactly correspond to reality".

That's not even what I said. Go back and read it again. Take none of your assumptions into it, just read it as is.

[naasking]

That is what you said. You literally said, "I think it proves that math isn't the language of the universe".