Are you familiar with the works of Carlos Castaneda? He described parallel realities; one was the rational tonal and the other the (seemingly) irrational nagual(where the magic happens). OK So not meaning to voice constraints on GOD, but perhaps god can be both rational and irrational without deviating from unity. ................... Perhaps: Much like the tao, the "god" that can be spoken of is not the real/eternal "god"

That seems to be a strange question to ask. The task to represent anything in any philosophical language begins with the perception of missing details that are required to be represented. Perhaps there is another way for you to ask this question in a way that makes more sense. This question is also not clear. Are you asking a general question about ontological hierarchies (To use simple language, "What 'things' are more 'real' than other 'things'?) or issues more specific to the current thread discussion on establishing/challenging mathematics as the dominant ontological language ("On what basis is it valid to cite the authority or limitations of mathematics?").

It's certainly part of it. But when the probability for a physical event actually presents, it has to follow certain mathematical rules.. This is one of Bohm's pillars. "Potentials" which probabilistically create an "Implicate", i.e. a mathematical "Imperative" of how the event must become expressed in our reality. IOW, the universe is mathematically/physically Deterministic (albeit probabilistic) in essence. Probabilities allow us to form statistical models over long periods of time. A very simple example can be found in baseball player statistics. A more complex example can be found in wave and wave-interference functions, such as in the "double slit" experiment. I've read all of them. Great stuff. Anil Seth explained how and why we "hallucinate" ourselves into existence, using "controlled hallucinations". When our hallucinations agree, we call it our reality. When those hallucinations become "uncontrolled", the person enters a different imaginary reality Ah, but peyote is a hallucinogenic. It messes with brain function and produces uncontrolled hallucinations which by definition are irrational. ................... Or a "mathematical God", which is both real/eternal (in the abstract) and can be spoken of through our mathematical symbolisms. IMO, there are no "miracles" only ignorance which created the gods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning) Can you imagine a what this must have looked like to early man? I'm sure, even today, to many uninformed minds these are UFOs or signs of God. But in reality, these are merely huge electrical discharges, caused by mathematically specific atmospheric conditions.

My sentience comes from the mathematical/chemical function of my fractal brain. But each brain has a specific programmed mathematical/chemical function, which does indeed sets us apart from other brains. Empathy is a sign of similarly programmed brain functions, both at a fundamental "hardwired" level and from "learning" (observing, experiencing). An Octopus has a very large brain, but it's reality (environment) is so different from humans, that they (mathematically) think different from humans, but are still sentient and intelligent. But to answer your question directly, I am a product of the mathematics that define spacetime. The mathematics themselves are not sentient, they are deterministic functions.

How is that even possible? When you're trying to represent something, don't you obviously begin with the details that are apparent? Once you've described what is apparent, how can you know whether or not there's anything you've missed? I think my question is clearer than your request for clarity. How can you know that the "highest truths" are there? What does "highest truths" even mean?

I agree. All (most) science begins with observation of patterns, the gross expression in reality, the first thing we see. We work backwards to the details. a great example is found in this lecture; https://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world IMO, a better analogy would be a "hierarchy of mathematical/physical functions and orders". The highest functions in that hierarchy would be the "universal constants". .

That would be the probabilistic aspect of natural mathematical/physical phenomena, from which we can derive statstical models

Well, I did say "perception" and "philosophical language", which are precursors to any representation. If you don't have those two things, then, yes, you can't even begin to discuss what is apparent, much less what is not apparent. Ok, we will take the ontological path. Suppose there is a 500 year old oil painting and two professionals from two different fields are called in to investigate it. For the sake of argument, we will assume that both are equally proficient and the quality of their conclusions is upheld by their specialized fields (so the conclusions presented by both are held to be true) One is a chemical scientist. They are capable of understanding all sorts of information about how the oil paint is produced, mixed and applied to the wooden surface. They can understand and explain how this gives rise to the perception of certain colours, etc. The other is an art historian. They are capable of understanding all sorts of information about the personal life of the artist and the cultural era they appeared in. They can understand and explain why certain subject matter is portrayed in the picture. Who has the highest understanding of the painting?

That is because the unverse is not a static condition. These are some of the problems Bohmian Mechanics solves, locality and entanglement at great distances. He saw the universe as a dynamic Wholeness, where if one thing happens in one place it affected something else, regardless where in the universe, i.e. Looking at it from that perspective the "Wholeness" presents some "hidden variables", which are in conflict with the Standard Model. A very simplified example of a deterministic probability ; Assume 2 hydrogen atoms millions of miles apart from an oxygen atom. Each atom is following a path that creates a probability they will intersect with the other two in the future. Pure determinism would bring these atoms together and form a water molecule. But these deterministic paths are dependent on absolute straight lines for the atoms to meet at the deterministic point. But suppose somewhere else a star goes nova and creates a wave function which interferes with one of the atoms and shifts its path so that it will no longer intersect with the other two. Result, no water molecule at the original intersection. Thus while the bonding of H2O is a deterministic process, the chance of meeting of the individual parts is probabilistic. This led Bohm to the concept of hidden variables, which is actually the only real deviation from the standard madel. He called this the Guiding Equation, which does not exist in the Standard Model. Can we say that when those atoms were far apart from each other there was a % probability of meeting. Probabilities are not fixed and deterministic in and of themselves. There is a range of probabilistic events, from 100% certainty (purely deterministic), to possible but with a .000000000001% low level of probability and certainly not deterministic to a specific result at a specific time. Robert Hazen explained this in his presentation of the probability of life evolving from bio molecules, which would require the exact necessary conditions which make this possible. Hazen called it the bottleneck, where conditions must be just right to allow for such an event to happen. Start the clip @ 25:25 to avoid a lenghty introduction. Thus, IMO, determinism rests on probability, which rests on possibility, which rests on potential, which rests on mathematical values and functions. A hierarchy of orderings, which may or may not result in a specific event. During the early time of inflation, the Wholeness was in a compressed state and just after the Inflationary Epoch, probabilistic events were common, the potential for particle interaction had a very high probability of deterministic events. But as the universe expanded and continous to expand dynamically the potential for interaction persists, but the range of probabilities goes down. One can argue that Determinism means something must happen precisely as the original state would indicate. But I don't believe this is the case. In a dynamic environment there are just to many variables to assure deterministic results every time and this gave rise to locality in the Standard Model which of course is easier to measure. But look at a a piece of flotsam in the middle of the ocean. Can we possibly predict where it will make landfall, if ever? Or look at a cloud, the dynamics in such environments are so complicated that, while we know something will happen (will eventually become deterministic in some way), there is no possibility to accurately predict what, where, and when something will happen. Thus weather forecasts can only be made in very short increments, based on available information, and even then are "best guesses". That's why weather forecasters speak in terms of "chance of rain", or "expected to develop into a hurricane". I'll readily admit that this is my "best understanding (guess)" of Bohmian Mechanics. Bohm had the maths to back up his claims, I don't.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why do we first look at the painting from a distance to get a first "overall impression"? After that we inspect the technique and details of individual parts of the painting. Then go back again and review the painting from a distance, having acquired more information and being able to appreciate the artistry more fully.......(see Anil Seth)

I see your point. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But the question was whether something can be represented mathematically. We don't have the technology to do it (yet) but the artists brain state could hypothetically be included in the representation. That would give a more accurate representation than the historian's brain state. As a side issue, the historian's "impression" of the painting may or may not bear any resemblance to the artist's intentions. As Linus Van Pelt once said when asked why an author wrote a certain book, "Maybe he needed the money."

Then I guess further discussion rests on what you want to establish as "hypothetical" in regards to current standards of what can actually be achieved. For instance, one could talk of hypothetically extracting the artists dna from the painting and re-engineering their genetics so they can come to life to explain their achievements within history. Existing in a legal grey area, this would enable us to also use these new creations for a range of slave-like occupations such as sex workers and miners. Disgruntled by their lot in life, Neo-Raphael and his associates would organize a covert rebellion to assert their independence in human society and I would be tasked to brutally hunt them down. As events would play out however, I would happen to get smitten by a strangely beautiful and charming genetic model and .... oh wait. Sorry, I am thinking of Bladerunner. In short, do you want to discuss the authority of science on scientists or science fiction writers? Or maybe somewhere halfway, like scientists with science fiction writer proclivities? To woo or not to woo, that is the question. You can bring infinite regress to challenge any proposal.

You mean writers like Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Arthur C Clarke, H G Wells, Philip K Dick, Frank Herbert, Ray Bradbury, George Orwell, Jules Verne, Ursula Le Guin, Kurt Vonnegut, Aldous Huxley, Frederick Pohl, Poul Anderson, Harlan Ellison? Many of these writers had a background in science and wrote rational science fiction. But no matter which of the Arts or Sciences you want to talk about, all great works have a foundation in the mathematics of their art. Music, Poetry, Painting, Architecture, Medicine, all have deep roots in rational or natural uses of mathematics, perspective, balance, harmony. Rather than just flights of fancy, many of these artists were forward looking geniuses, visualizing possible futures, inspirng science to reach further and further. AI is but one example of what is to come very soon. When was the first robot used in science fiction? Moreover, Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is not that far ahead anymore. Today, some 90% of all human activity involves the use of robotics in some way. All based on mathematical functions. We have learned the language of the universe and are applying it for our own uses and pleasures.

This may be of interest; https://video.nationalgeographic.co...0309&utm_campaign=Ngdotcom&utm_rd=24308569435