Thucydides wrote:Many people would beg to differ. While I am not positive that your idea is wrong, it is very interesting that the best and most accurate way to describe this universe is through mathematics, i.e. numbers.
The map isn´t the territory.
Math is the easiest way to describe the universe in a scientific way, not the most accurate.
And those who would beg to differ, well that´s their problem. Because describing or representing reality, ISNT reality. No matter how perfect a picture or painting of a person is, the picture or painting is still never the person.
And maths can´t really describe reality THAT well. It´s just an extremely convenient way to make it possible to handle reality in ways that are far more problematic if you stay closer to actual reality.
There´s an almost endless number of things that can be proven mathematically, which simply are not true.
For example, a standard deviation curve? It´s actually effectively a lie. Why?
Because it has a bundle of exceptions that cannot be predicted for certain, which means it can only be used correctly for purposes where we know after the fact, where it has already been confirmed, that such a curve IS valid.
This has been touched on more and more in the last decade in regards to economics, as old "truths" have shown themselves to not work, no matter how perfectly true and proper the underlying math is.
Physics has fewer KNOWN pitfalls, but there´s still plenty of *whoops* done.
Especially in regards to physics when time is involved, things go wonky more often than not.
There was for example once the mathematically proven idea that if the universe began contracting, time would go in reverse.
Red Dwarf had a fun episode with that, but it´s no longer considered a serious idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EahHThBjDB0As long as math isn´t just representing reality, then until it has been shown to also correspond 1:1 in both directions, you simply can´t trust an answer completely.