Is there anything in nature that mathematics can absolutely model? If there is I don’t think we have found it yet … In fact we find that the most perfect logical concepts are the most inappropriate to map the beauty of space. We look at ourselves and we operate within reason to a logical framework, but we have so much about us that is irrational as well. Is this the ‘error’ in us.
We have developed sequences and series patterns in mathematics that model the behaviour of nature very closely, but there is always error. We can walk the path of logic, but at the end we must always “believe” … We believe there are such things as atoms for example … It has to be a belief because we have not seen them. We believe our machines are enabling us to see atoms or at least the effect of the forces exhibited by atoms on one another … converted through some sort of interpreting device to a picture. Even ideas such as 1 + 1 = 2 … It makes sense to us and we can prove it … To such an extent that some will say that even if we deny that 1 +1 = 2 the fact is that it will remain 1 + 1 = 2 … that is a different argument. But the domain of belief presides over all things that we accept and acknowledge.
Belief is achieved with or without established objective facts, and when a fact is acknowledged a belief is indeed placed in it. Belief cannot be escaped except when we deny ourselves - i.e. blind ourselves to hearing or seeing the concept and preventing ourselves from bouncing the concept in our minds and hearts until it resonates.
We see tangible things with more clarity and hence use constructive concepts to establish beliefs that we call “facts” … when we do not utilise tangible methods we can still establish beliefs, but we merely call them “beliefs” … however small there is always a level of uncertainty and we acknowledge that or not … but the fact is we see mathematical precision as being perfect yet no where in nature does that precision exist.
So how perfect is our idea of precision really when it does not even exist? We believe it exists and we are fascinated over it and we can work with it in our art and other forms of expression. Yet our attempts to map and measure are never adequate. In nature we see a different form of perfection … It is a balance that is achieved through asymmetry. No snowflake is ever like another … we can model snow in our graphic generators these days - but we use looping patterns when doing so.
We can prepare models to map a universe as though it operates out of clockwork accident … but how can it be so accidental when everything is set apart from all else. No twin is a true twin. Nothing is 100% predictable … Although we want to believe this …
It is a catastrophe that we view the universe through models that are so perfectly symmetrical whilst knowing those models are only approximations. When we give Reality its due regard we fathom that it is “Imperfection” that is perfectly real …
And yes … even this is a belief, but it is one induced by the parameters of measurement that we have at our disposal. At least we understand when we measure and model reality we should do so by giving regard to the model and then to reality with the same parameters in order to make the measurement meaningful.
It follows that rules for measurement should not be broken and we put faith in to the idea that these rules transcend our idea of belief, or else life would get too complicated to do otherwise.