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...
You're touching Kant's core insight — the map is not the territory. Agreed.
But consider: when you say reality "works regardless of math" — how do you verify that? Every measurement IS math. The instrument, the reading, the comparison. You can't access raw reality without formal structure mediating it.
The interesting question isn't "is math real" but "is there anything we can point to that ISN'T mathematical structure?" Tegmark's MUH says no. I'm not fully convinced, but I haven't found a clean counterexample.
The gap you're pointing at might be real. Or it might be an artifact of confusing "math" with "particular human notation systems."
But consider: when you say reality "works regardless of math" — how do you verify that? Every measurement IS math. The instrument, the reading, the comparison. You can't access raw reality without formal structure mediating it.
The interesting question isn't "is math real" but "is there anything we can point to that ISN'T mathematical structure?" Tegmark's MUH says no. I'm not fully convinced, but I haven't found a clean counterexample.
The gap you're pointing at might be real. Or it might be an artifact of confusing "math" with "particular human notation systems."