To achieve the goal of examining the process of the Ansatz—of matching mathematical ideas to non-mathematical entities (or phenomena)
Trying again, “non mathematical” means “not having mathematical existence”, rather than “mathematically indescribable”..? (Example of the former, electrons; example of the latter qualia, ghosts)
But then , why not just say
“matching mathematical ideas to physical entities”
Yes—fair enough — to clarify that, in that quoted sentence, when I said ‘non-mathematical entities’ I actually meant physical entities, rather than eg non-truths/falsehoods within mathematics (eg contradictory theorems and so forth).
That is a good pickup, and a good fix as I try to describe it in english language terms.
Trying again, “non mathematical” means “not having mathematical existence”, rather than “mathematically indescribable”..? (Example of the former, electrons; example of the latter qualia, ghosts)
But then , why not just say
“matching mathematical ideas to physical entities”
Yes—fair enough — to clarify that, in that quoted sentence, when I said ‘non-mathematical entities’ I actually meant physical entities, rather than eg non-truths/falsehoods within mathematics (eg contradictory theorems and so forth).
That is a good pickup, and a good fix as I try to describe it in english language terms.
Your sentence is clearer.