How come math is able to describe reality so well?

we'll probably model it eventually, the process isn't really foreign. take a bunch of potassium ions and change their charge to move them across a membrane gate where they perform the next function and so on. its bio-organic programming done like we currently think god would do it.

i read the other day that we only have 4 proteins in our dna because more than that and the transport mechanisms fuck up too much on replication to provide viable long term accuracy. there's a magic number for you. 4. all of this can be plugged into an algorithm, you just need the inputs.

maths is just a decoder wheel for the language of the physical universe. a good teacher matters a lot.

Some of mathematics does.

Quantities obviously correspond to some basic rules, addition, division, subtraction.

Physics is obviously a small subset of math

>probably
That's no good. You can only be sure if it actually happens. I doubt you can ever model biology as efficiently as circuits, say.

And then you get to the quantum shit and everything falls apart

The axoims of math we decided on usually fit our idea of what reality is, or at least our experimental predictions. We know that when you have two things and then you get two more you have four things. If that wasn't the case, mathematical axioms would change to suit it. That's the original reason we created math.

there will never be a way to understand how all of those tiny processes form the illusion of free will

checkmate, atheists

>Math can't even be used to describe the human mind
not yet

Prove.

And btw, observations aren't facts.

>not yet
not ever

Math only works in the purest sciences and describing simple things. It fails miserably when describing complexity.

Put down the ganja

Math is the only way we have of describing anything rigorously. There is no alternative, so saying it works "well" is misleading. It certainly works better than not describing things at all.

...

>Only 4 Proteins in our DNA

My little user can't be this retarded

>what is dynamics
>what is all this graph theory networking shit in every discipline these days
>how to modern mathematics

>Math can describe the weather
>Math can describe the economy
assburgers

It can,just not yet

lol nice religion-tier faith, retard

It's because of Quantum Dawkins Theory.
which stated that quarks can emit anti-green, blue, red gluons that allows them to be measured.

However it is not proven yet as it would require to build 800TeV particle accelerator

There it is
Lets go home lads

Well what stops me claiming math is a small subset of the study of schlurbog or some other made-up thing?
Unfalsifiable bullshit all around.

stochastic pde's

this

You guys are idiots.

Most people here don't understand what math is.

OP, when you say math, you are referring to the logic of quantities. We define the rules of engagement for this logic with axioms and rules of inference. What you appear to be asking, then, is why do our axioms and rules of engagement so accurately correspond to the observations in our reality.

One way to answer is to say that we have chosen these axioms and rules specifically for the purpose of creating a reasonable and applicable system which mirrors our observation of reality. Another is to say that we have observed these axioms to appear true and thus assume them to be true without evidence for the sake of building upon them.

But that's wrong. There are infinitely many ways of describing things.

I describe the quantity off one thing with another as the same quantity of one thing with another with yet another, and without an arbitrary set of axioms, I have been rigorous but have yet to encounter any contradiction.

We also know that our system cannot be complete.

It is NOT the only way of describing things rigorously, even without resorting to nonsense.

It is a collection of ideas which can be easily adapted to describe most observable phenomena rigorously, which is by no means unique.

/thread

Each apple has seeds that potentially reproduce and result in the logical possibility of infinite apples or you could just eat them both and they suddenly become zero apples.

It already does. Accuracy is like 75%. It just takes a whole lot of fucking resources.

>physics
>describing reality well