I struggle with the

*"is mathematics*" as well, but then sometimes I think it does

*sort of *make

*some *sense (in the way that a refelction in a hall of mirrors

*sort of* looks like the person).

There's the whole "map v territory" category fallacy that it seems to be, or "model v reality" to put it in a more mathematical scenario. So my thinking about it is that the more detailed the mathematical model, the more closely the output reflects reality. This isn't novel. We all aspire, when we make such models - be they financial or otherwise - to make them as reflective of reality as possible. So, to mix analogies, at what point does a working model of a duck actually become a duck? How detailed must the model be to reflect reality

*perfectly*? And if something is a

*perfect *model of reality, then surely it ceases being a model at all, and actually is the reality that you're modelling, right?

So, my thinking is that

**if** you can create a mathematical model that

*perfectly* represents reality, then that mathematical model must be that reality. And hence reality could be considered mathematical. And that's my sticking point in this line of thinking (as woolly and unscientificly simple as I've tried to make it) - is it actually possible to create a mathematical model that

*perfectly *reflects reality?

If you create a model of a duck that

*perectly *looks, walks, smells, quacks, and does everything else a duck does and does them exactly like a duck... is it not a duck?

A similar line of thinking - and excuse the slight sidetrack - seems to be with regard the "

Simulation Hypothesis", the idea that we, and our universe, are actually nothing more than a simulation being run in a (albeit rather powerful) computer. It has serious probabilistic arguments for it, but the point is not whether it's true or not, but that

*if true* then it would also suggest that our universe is nothing more than a series of 0s and 1s, or whatever computational system the computer is running on. I.e. something akin to it being

*mathematical*.

One could argue that with regard the MUH, the Simulation Hypothesis really just pushes the issue back a layer, but I thought it sufficiently worthy of comparison.

Anyhoo - just a side note.