[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Agreed...science seeks to represent What Is in relationships or measurements of relationships which bear no direct resemblance to What Is.
And which never can, because symbols can never substitute for experience and reality.

Yes, this is what mathematical language does fundamentally, it does not identify anything real, but rather, demonstrates within the mind the dimensional confines inherent to inter-related entities. As it turns out the mind is bound in relationship in the same way the universe limited by relativity. This is where relationship is the affect of any one 'thing' on other and both things inherit each others inter-determined qualities. In so saying, there is no 'one thing' because 'things' are essentially relative, and because they are relative, they are constrained in the limits of that relationship. The math has to start with a assumption, 'let x be...', for example, but the meaning produced by the subsequent statements is 'true' because the expressed relationship coheres to relative nature of 'real things' (i.e the universal relationship). Therefore math can be discovered through the act of imagining because its fundamental operation is universal. It can capture the nature of relationship demonstratably, but it can not describe, quite literally cannot, describe a thing unto itself. Euclid only referred to 'that which has no parts', and represented it as 'a point', but it might then be a corner, a beginning or an end or an intersection and so on... but math is inherently based in this notion of a singularity which itself has no substance, and the most fundamental elements of geometry are literally unimaginable, but still representable as a symbol. This indicates that the nature of mind is indeed transcendent, but also relative, as if by reflection upon itself it relates by both being the same in reflection, and by being whole in contrast. The elements of contrast don't have to be what they are, black could be white as long as white is black, so in the whole universe of change there is this most severe limitation at the relational level, but no limitation as to what 'things' can be ('things' are only constrained by the dimension of relationship). The spacial landscape is dimensionally confined because all things inter-are - yet in themselves ... (well that's an oxymoron).

They can only serve as reminders or pointers in the most finite and "measurable" or concretely symbolic sense, and all experience is only measurable or scientific in the same sense that the scientific paradigm can rigidly and explicitly guide and name and control it.

Still, it is a layer of truth, I agree.

Peace & blessings
7L