I guess it would have to be that there are indescribable ‘features’ of the universe that are real and maybe even relevant to the describable features?
Eg. time (particularly passing-time), consciousness (particularly qualia). If you want to know what the potentially non-mathematical features are, look at how people argue against physicalism.
means “describable by a formal system”, and I don’t know how a thing could fail to be so describable.
Formally, some formal systems can fail to describe themselves.
Eg. time (particularly passing-time), consciousness (particularly qualia). If you want to know what the potentially non-mathematical features are, look at how people argue against physicalism.
I don’t get why these wouldn’t be mathematizable.
Formally, some formal systems can fail to describe themselves.
Sure, but for every formal system, there’s some formal system that describes it (right?)
Eg. time (particularly passing-time), consciousness (particularly qualia). If you want to know what the potentially non-mathematical features are, look at how people argue against physicalism.
Formally, some formal systems can fail to describe themselves.
I don’t get why these wouldn’t be mathematizable.
Sure, but for every formal system, there’s some formal system that describes it (right?)
But they haven’t been mathematized.
Seems to me that time has been satisfactorily mathematized.
Only if you don’t mind it working like space.