@futurebird @mcc @pesasa @vikxin @Wharrrrrrgarbl @Kichae @whknott @dwildstr
Math and logic seem to map well onto the observed “real world”, despite how hard the complexity of reality usually fights back against being divided up into simple boxes. Math works by being useful tool in predicting stuff. Also it doesn't seem disagree with itself all the time. How to rule out the existence of some alternative, completely alien math like @mattdm said? Could there be something that breaks our logic but still helps predict things, maybe better than what we have?
It's a vague feeling and I find it difficult to completely get rid of, mostly because it directly challenges the fundamental validity of the tools I otherwise would rely on to seek clarity. Like, am I even allowed to try to think rationally? If not, how can I proceed at all? How to “prove” something if you can't just assume that any rules hold? Would it be possible to find solid answers from some specific kind of unhinged ramblings?
However, I actually do have something that tastes like an answer. It just feels like it bypasses the problem.
I'd say that math is based on some self-sustaining stable things in our brains. Maybe “attractor” is a correct word here – math could be seen as a system of strong attractors. It consists of tiny rules or patterns that our brains find easiest to hold onto and reproduce. We learn them by repeatedly observing corresponding similar (but not exactly equivalent) stable phenomena in the nature. For example, we think that three stones today is still three stones tomorrow, unless someone removes one of them or adds another. But what if we realize later that one of the stones is actually made of foam? Our simple rules are so sticky and dear to us that we rather count that as subtraction, too (someone tricked us and swapped a stone when we weren't looking), or we say that there were only two stones from the beginning, but we just didn't notice that one of them wasn't real. We would firmly refuse the conclusion that three is sometimes equal to two.
Maybe this is more or less what most of you meant in your replies?
I think the answer basically says “wrong question” and then turns it around, pointing outwards: why are some things in the universe simple enough that they can be modeled by a minuscule brain? And my hunch on that is: matter couldn't organize into even simplest life if the local environment was too chaotic to present lots of simple patterns.
Maybe practically satisfying, but not philosophically/mathematically or however it should be described.