>>14301481>I never said we don't use math in physicsRight, you said math is not needed for physics. Please show me how you are going to replace all the math in physics with something better. There is quite a lot. Until then, I don't believe your claim.
>It does not mean that the universe itself requires math in any way.This is gibberish. Does the universe "require" us to model it?
>Our words "communicating information" to each other does not in any way mean that information actually exists anywhere but in our minds.Are you telepathic? How is information transfered if it only exists in our minds? You have no clue what you're talking about. Information exists in genes and other algorithmic instructions regardless of any mind. Try learning some information theory before making a fool of yourself.
>What actually exists are vibrating particles, which are real physics things.Vibrating particles are just a model, how do you know they're real?
>WrongYou can't even provide a single counter-example. Sad.
>Wrong, atoms and celestial bodies are not models.Of course they are. LOL.
>We make up models to talk about atoms and celestial bodies.No, we make up models called atoms and celestial bodies that synthesize empirical data. How do you know atoms are real? Because the theories that use them are successful.
>The mathematics of physics is a made up model, of course it "corresponds to reality", we made it up so that it would correspond to it.Thanks for finally admitting you're wrong.
>Literally nothing in physics says that I'm wrongThere are literally probability calculations in physics that say things are impossible in the universe. So your entire line of argument that probability calculations are not relevant is just plain wrong.
