Better than mine. I was going to claim that the universe was based on colours or flavours, all you have to do is develop a colour/flavour palette to understand it. Positive ions are red, negative ions are blue. Our 'math' simply interprets the colours. Does it change our understanding of the world? No, but it adds more entities.
Forces do not "express themselves". Forces do not do mathematics at all.
Perhaps you should write a book called "The English (language) Universe", see how many copies it'll sell in Denmark or China.
A lot, if my last name was Hawking or Gould; people in Denmark read English quite well.
A universe that is math is woo, as has been demonstrated countless times.
It is not woo; it is just not 100% accurate. Change your wording just a bit - from a universe that IS math to a universe that is DESCRIBED by math - and it would be accurate.
Thanks for begging and answering the obvious question.
How is it that we can even begin to describe it? How can we describe anything, unless there is something to describe?
How was that woo demonstrated?
And what in this equation is not woo?
I agree, the map is not the territory.
Why is that begging the question? It is just as valid to describe it in Danish.
Because both of us can read and write in English.
With English names. Note that I am not going to use functions; I am going to use more direct language, like "mass warps spacetime." See? No mathematical functions or values.
If you are going to define "universal mathematics" as "the way the universe operates" then fine - but in that case I am just as justified in defining "universal English" the same way, and with as much validity.
Interesting that alphabetical language is not used in scientific proofs, other than as a general narrative.
Then why do we need human maths? You think a calculator can process mathematical equations in English?
OK, ask a computer what you just described. "mass warps spacetime a long time and different everywhere in the universe". How much does it warp in the solar-system? It has a sun with planets floating around in the warped spaetime. Can you provide me with an quantitative equation?
The inhuman universe (as far as we know) does not process values or functions mathematically. I provided some examples from elementary calculus, of the kinds of things it does not do.
It is not possible to do that without knowing that one is doing that. The abstraction, simplification, approximation, and adherence to rule, are conscious by necessity.
Humans use mathematics. Before they used the specialty written notation we are familiar with today, they did their mathematics in their speaking and writing language - Greek, English, whatever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
Right, the universe does not use Human mathematics, it uses Universal mathematics. How often do I have to say it?
Really? That's theism. The universal intelligence, God
Will you please stop comparing universal mathematical processes with human symbolic representations of these processes. Why do you keep insisting on looking at this from a subjective human perspective?
Read any article in Nature. Full of English words.
Because if you're an engineer, math is VERY useful.
Of course it can. There's even a clock that shows the time in English words rather than numbers. "It is half past seven" for example. It would, of course, be super awkward for most math, which is why we use Arabic numerals and standard mathematical notations to do math most of the time.
Not sure why, but OK.
A LOT!
Yes. The gravity is sufficient to balance the momentum of the planets that is trying to drive them in straight lines away from the Sun, such that they describe circular or elliptical orbits around the Sun.
A good computer (say, Alexa) will recite the Wikipedia article on gravitation which is (wait for it) ENGLISH WORDS!
As is "the universe uses math to process information."
And math!
Wow.
Yep, Human math!
It seems to give up it secrets through math, which we can observe and codify with human math.
What you have to explain is why you are calling stuff that does not resemble human mathematics "mathematics".
You keep calling them both "mathematics" - it's not me doing the comparing.
All with mathematical precision.
I am not comparing versions of math. I am stating there are human maths (symbolice representations of universal values and functions), and there is universal math which is the physical expression of universal processing of relative values and constant functions.
Since the math involved generates approximations, it's obvious that much greater than mathematical precision is attained by the real world.
You are using the term "mathematics" for two different things, that do not appear to resemble each other very closely. Why?