/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8656347
>We just use mathematics to describe things, but that doesn't make the things mathematics. I really don't know what's so hard to understand about that. It doesn't matter how well the mathematics describe reality.

Because that's hand-waving logic for brainlets who don't want to ponder whether the mathematic relationships themselves are meaningful. It would be a tremendous coincidence to have a well-tuned system of mathematics to describe physical objects without the system mirroring the relationships between physical objects to some extent.

>complex numbers don't mean anything
>but so many physics calculations require their use, and they're necessary for some calculations
>the calculations are almost seamless, very few if any exceptions required despite their weird nature
>brainlets think this isn't even remotely suspicious

Everybody knows that abstract objects and physical objects are different. But do relationships between abstract objects mirror the relationships found between physical objects in an intuitive manner? Or is all mathematics a gimmick for understanding facts about reality? Can better analogical systems be devised?

>In particular, we don't have a correct theory of everything as of yet, which makes the idea even more ridiculous.

>we don't understand everything
>therefore don't try to understand everything

Great logic. Thanks man.

>whenever I think about tfw no gf, a strange sensation runs through my nasal cavity and throat and my mouth gets salty

What's happening here?