[ladyattis]

>I don't see why it's logical to conclude that difficulties modeling hard problems means we can't model them using math.

That's not what I'm stating though. I'm stating that the math involved is a model but it isn't ever going to be identical to the thing being modeled. Meaning that math isn't the "language of nature" as we don't have a direct means to truly comprehend it (direct realism has a whole has been discarded by philosophers for a long time now).

>I see literally no reason to jump to the conclusion that the core problem is trying to use math at all.

Again, that's not what I said, please read my post again.

[naasking]

> I'm stating that the math involved is a model but it isn't ever going to be identical to the thing being modeled.

I don't know what "identical" means in this context. Either a mathematical model can capture all of the information in the system, or it can't. We know that we can reproduce a function on a long enough timeline just by observing its outputs via Solomonoff Induction.

The only escape hatch here is if reality has incomputable features. There's no evidence of this at this time. That's why it's confusing that you would go from "we have persistent hard problems" to "mathematical models can't exactly correspond to reality".

[ladyattis]

>That's why it's confusing that you would go from "we have persistent hard problems" to "mathematical models can't exactly correspond to reality".

That's not even what I said. Go back and read it again. Take none of your assumptions into it, just read it as is.