@bhobba responding to
@PeroK 's:
"The question, put in more sober terms, is whether mathematics is sufficient to describe nature at a fundamental level. "
So,
@PeroK says "fundamental level", and
@bhobba then describes it as a "real mystery".
In both cases, they seem to be imagining some kind of Physics "end game". And then, perhaps with
@PeroK but certainly with
@bhobba, it is an end game where nothing is left on the table.
Perhaps I have no patience for "mystery", but I see things differently - or perhaps only more explicitly.
There are the rules of Physics which we are working to uncover - a task that may well outlast our species.
We use Math to assimilate and model our observations. I have no doubt that Math is up to the task. After all, all we are trying to do is model the observed results of the mechanics and it's hard to imagine a situation where we fail to come up with a working model because of limitations in Math rather than limitations in Mathematicians.
But then there is this "reality" thing:
First, let me show you what I see as the connection between "consciousness" and "reality". And by "consciousness", I am referring to a very basic Physical element - not necessarily to a "human consciousness" with all of its brain-based "animal", "self", "social", etc attachments.
In my view, reality and this basic kind of consciousness are very tightly bound. A universe without any form of consciousness is just an uninstantiated version of Physics. And if the rules of that universe have never been contemplated in a "conscious" world such as ours, it isn't even a dream - it is nothing.
So, I view "consciousness" as a kind of substrate to a universe.
For the case-in-point, (ie, our universe), I have posted on this before. Based on my observation of my own consciousness and discussions with others on the nature of theirs, human consciousness has the capacity to hold well more than a few bits of information in a single state. Given the known Physics, this is entanglement.
And that makes QM entanglement as a tie-point between the observable mechanics of our universe and its conscious substrate.
That tie-point is my boundary of Physics. That substrate is consciousness and I see absolutely no potential to uncovering any further information about it. We can still create further models of entanglement - and perhaps refine the exact role of the tie point(s), but there is no observation that would discern the differences between "reality" and "nothing" beyond what is immediately apparent.
So, when I use the term "fundamental" in Physics, I am only referring to the mechanics down to the tie-points and no further - because I see no reason to expect that the reality substrate itself is "explainable" or even by its nature could be explainable.
