[bad_user]

> Math is how the universe works

This is bullshit, and the mathematicians themselves know it.

Just one obvious example that everyone can understand: Euclidean geometry does not describe the universe, even if it's useful.

But more broadly, the fact that math is not how the universe works was proven with math: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...

[pritambaral]

Nobody's making the claim that Euclidean geometry is all of maths. But the part of the universe that Euclidean geometry represents has always, still does, and will continue to work even when the last traces of Euclidean geometry vanish from recorded knowledge and memory.

> ... link to Gödel's incompleteness theorems

That's a proof of some limits of formal systems — particularly those that want to formalise everything under one unified set of axioms — not limits of mathematics. Mathematics / the universe does care one iota if you use this particular set of axioms or another. Or even any. It continues to work without a care for your need to have a grand unified theory. That you cannot discover all of its secrets because you restricted yourself is not its concern.

Maths is how the universe works, whether you understand it or not.

----

But thank you for linking to Gödel's theorems. Your link directly answers the topic being discussed. You'll notice the text never says "invented" when talking about these or related theorems; it says "discovered".

[defrost]

> Euclidean geometry does not describe the universe, even if it's useful.

A statement that doesn't disprove the thesis in the slightest.

eg: There's non-Euclidean geometry which some say is handy in a post Newton Einstein universe.

If that fails, I feel there'll be something else again that conforms better to the universe as we understand it to be.

> the fact that math is not how the universe works was proven with math

Another statement that fails to prove the thesis; the universe itself is sufficiently complex that there can indeed be things out there that we will never 'prove' to our satisfaction.

You need to do some lifting here (perhaps a little more than 'some') to prove that Godel|Church|Turing results demonstrate beyond doubt that maths cannot underpin the workings of a universe.

Your comment reminds me a little of Gödel's ontological "proof" .. full of sound and fury but not really landing.