If mathematics and observation were to ever disagree, which would

>>8453697
So the thing with mathematics is that it is the only science we can ever be 100% sure of. So when it disagrees with observation, assuming no errors and correct observation, the only explanation is that there is math going on that we haven't discovered yet.

The math is never wrong.

>>8453697

then you've used the wrong theoretical model/framework i would say.

if the expected result and the actual result are inconsistent it means that either the equation didn't properly represent the actual process taking place, or there was a factor involved that wasn't accounted for ...which I guess are essentially the same thing in different words

>>8453737
>>8453808
>>8453819

Is it possible it turns out that the consistent accuracy of mathematics was a temporary phenomena that only worked for the past few thousand years and that our universe no longer works that way?

>>8453826
The self-consistency of mathematics is not related to what goes on in the real world and it's logically proven. Either we can use math to model some part of reality, meaning observation is consistent with certain mathematical rules, or we can't. You seem to be confusing mathematical self-consistency with a model's success. One is solid while the other is entirely empirical and therefore fallible.

>>8453826
the universe has nothing to do with math.
math is the absolute

>>8453845
math is god