>>13587880Well, for a long time, we found a phenomenon and tried to find a mathematical way to describe it. Afterwards, we were able to compute the behaviour of a phenomenon.
In modern physics we oftentimes do it the other way round: we predict the existance of a phenomenon mathematically and find it afterwards (for example black holes or Higgs particles).
Since we are able to deduce the existance of phenomena just because of mathematical consistancy, we could believe it's because the real nature of everything is a mathematical one, which is of course a confusion of map and territory.
Nevertheless, there's a bit more to it. Since we are pretty succesful with the mathematical description of phenomena and what we can deduce with them and since we're even able to forecast the existance of phenomena due to their consistancy with certain theories about other phenomena you might argue that at least the rules of mathematics, it's structur, must have a counterpart in nature. Otherwise, it wouldn't work. That's why Wittgenstein for example thought reality has a "logical structure".
