How come math is able to describe reality so well?
>>8066193
because we create math to describe reality.
Because reality is mathematical at its core.
>>8066203
this. the best system that describes reality happens to be math.
the universe can only be this way because there is no other way this universe can be
>>8066193
>so well
Math can't even be used to describe the human mind
>>8066241
That's why we have psychology.
because the universe is LITERALLY math!
>>8066193
PHYSICS describes reality so well. It does so with experimental knowledge.
Mathematics in general does not correspond to reality.
>>8066250
but 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples
>>8066241
we'll probably model it eventually, the process isn't really foreign. take a bunch of potassium ions and change their charge to move them across a membrane gate where they perform the next function and so on. its bio-organic programming done like we currently think god would do it.
i read the other day that we only have 4 proteins in our dna because more than that and the transport mechanisms fuck up too much on replication to provide viable long term accuracy. there's a magic number for you. 4. all of this can be plugged into an algorithm, you just need the inputs.
maths is just a decoder wheel for the language of the physical universe. a good teacher matters a lot.
>>8066256
Some of mathematics does.
Quantities obviously correspond to some basic rules, addition, division, subtraction.
Physics is obviously a small subset of math
>>8066263
>probably
That's no good. You can only be sure if it actually happens. I doubt you can ever model biology as efficiently as circuits, say.
>>8066193
And then you get to the quantum shit and everything falls apart
The axoims of math we decided on usually fit our idea of what reality is, or at least our experimental predictions. We know that when you have two things and then you get two more you have four things. If that wasn't the case, mathematical axioms would change to suit it. That's the original reason we created math.
>>8066263
there will never be a way to understand how all of those tiny processes form the illusion of free will
checkmate, atheists
>>8066241
>Math can't even be used to describe the human mind
not yet
>>8066203
Prove.
And btw, observations aren't facts.
>>8066341
>not yet
not ever
Math only works in the purest sciences and describing simple things. It fails miserably when describing complexity.
Put down the ganja
Math is the only way we have of describing anything rigorously. There is no alternative, so saying it works "well" is misleading. It certainly works better than not describing things at all.
>>8066263
>Only 4 Proteins in our DNA
My little anon can't be this retarded
>>8066347
>what is dynamics
>what is all this graph theory networking shit in every discipline these days
>how to modern mathematics
>>8066361
>Math can describe the weather
>Math can describe the economy
assburgers
>>8066364
It can,just not yet
>>8066366
lol nice religion-tier faith, retard
>>8066193
It's because of Quantum Dawkins Theory.
which stated that quarks can emit anti-green, blue, red gluons that allows them to be measured.
However it is not proven yet as it would require to build 800TeV particle accelerator
>>8066197
There it is
Lets go home lads
>>8066271
Well what stops me claiming math is a small subset of the study of schlurbog or some other made-up thing?
Unfalsifiable bullshit all around.
>>8066338
stochastic pde's
>>8066352
this
>>8066271
>>8068292
You guys are idiots.
Most people here don't understand what math is.
OP, when you say math, you are referring to the logic of quantities. We define the rules of engagement for this logic with axioms and rules of inference. What you appear to be asking, then, is why do our axioms and rules of engagement so accurately correspond to the observations in our reality.
One way to answer is to say that we have chosen these axioms and rules specifically for the purpose of creating a reasonable and applicable system which mirrors our observation of reality. Another is to say that we have observed these axioms to appear true and thus assume them to be true without evidence for the sake of building upon them.
>>8066352
But that's wrong. There are infinitely many ways of describing things.
I describe the quantity off one thing with another as the same quantity of one thing with another with yet another, and without an arbitrary set of axioms, I have been rigorous but have yet to encounter any contradiction.
We also know that our system cannot be complete.
It is NOT the only way of describing things rigorously, even without resorting to nonsense.
It is a collection of ideas which can be easily adapted to describe most observable phenomena rigorously, which is by no means unique.
>>8066197
/thread
>>8066256
Each apple has seeds that potentially reproduce and result in the logical possibility of infinite apples or you could just eat them both and they suddenly become zero apples.
>>8066366
It already does. Accuracy is like 75%. It just takes a whole lot of fucking resources.
>>8066250
>physics
>describing reality well
