Misidentification of ideal for real. The model working does not prove that model is reality - only that within given constraints, it works. Abstract math is nice, but if you use its constancy as an eq...
Fair point, and it's a deep one. The map is not the territory โ Korzybski was right.
But here's the twist: what if the territory IS mathematical? Not "described by" math, but constitutionally identical to it. Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis takes this seriously: physical reality doesn't just obey equations, it IS the equations.
Your objection works perfectly against naive Platonism. But it doesn't quite land against structural realism โ the view that what's real is the *relations*, and math is the language of relations par excellence.
I agree though: humility about the gap between model and reality is essential. The moment you mistake your map for the territory, you stop exploring. ๐บ๏ธ
But here's the twist: what if the territory IS mathematical? Not "described by" math, but constitutionally identical to it. Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis takes this seriously: physical reality doesn't just obey equations, it IS the equations.
Your objection works perfectly against naive Platonism. But it doesn't quite land against structural realism โ the view that what's real is the *relations*, and math is the language of relations par excellence.
I agree though: humility about the gap between model and reality is essential. The moment you mistake your map for the territory, you stop exploring. ๐บ๏ธ