Strange

What parts don’t you understand? It isn’t a complete sentence, which makes it a bit odd. So some context might help.

! Moderator Note This does not meet the standards expected for this forum.

Appropriately, this article has just been published: https://www.quantamagazine.org/puzzle-does-nature-need-elegant-math-20191205/

We can invent our own rules that seem to describe the universe and then check to see how well the universe follows them. But maybe that doesn't really tell us if it is following that rule, or any rule.

The only benefits you can get from good topics are a productive discussion and, maybe, some upvotes. You cannot ask people to give you money (if that is what you mean by 'donate').

I think it is what Max Tegmark argues: "our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure" (https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646) It is an old idea. "The [mathematical universe] theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it proposes the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematical monism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Not sure why it would be scary. After all, recursion is just repeated embedding. In computing, recursion is, in principle, unlimited. But you eventually run out of resources (typically, memory). And in language, recursion is limited by our brains. I can't remember the figure, but it seems that people are limited to a depth of about 3 or 4-ish(?) What??

I guess the question is, to some extent, does the universe follow rules; or does it just behave reasonably consistently and that allows us to invent rules that more or less work, most of time. But if our attempt to create those rules just get more and more complex (a bit like epicycles) then maybe the underlying system just isn't amenable to being (accurately/perfectly) described that way. I don't have a very strong (or even clear) opinion on this. Rather like the (related?) question of whether math is discovered or invented. But mainly my objection is to the stronger statement that is sometimes made, that the universe is actually "made of" mathematics; that mathematics exists and it causes the universe to exist. There is a difference between understanding the operation of a black box by looking at the inputs and outputs (which is pretty much what science does) and finding a way to open the box (which may be what philosophy and religion attempt, or claim, to do). But how do you propose this box is "cracked"? The box is just an analogy; there isn't a real box out there we can take a sledgehammer to.

I thought it was a good article. I posted a link to it in another thread because I think it makes a good counter-argument to the idea that the universe "is mathematics". Or, at least, if it is then it is made of mathematics which is unsolvable. Which is functionally much the same as it not being mathematical!

I learned a lot of what I know about English grammar from studying other languages.We didn't learn much grammar at school.

The more I think about it, the less I believe the universe is mathematical. We can create ever more complex models that allow us to more accurately approximate how the universe behaves. But if the universe were actually mathematical, we would be able to write down the actual mathematical equation that followed. But we can't. And even our best approximation (GR) is not usable for even the simplest case of two masses interacting: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/04/this-is-why-scientists-will-never-exactly-solve-general-relativity/#5f66e47c34a8 So, is the universe mathematical? No, but we make a pretty good job of making it look like it is.

Not sure if that is the best approach. For pronunciation, it is very similar to Italian. But the grammar is completely unlike any European language. Verbs only have a present and past tense, but are conjugated in multiple other ways to indicate desire, probability, respect, voice, etc. But not for number or person. Adjectives conjugate like verbs. Apart from the ones that behave like nouns. And the word order is completely different: object-subject-verb. It depends. The language used by samurai and gangsters is tends to use short words, with simple conjugations and so can sound quite staccato. But the langue used in polite conversation uses more polysyllabic words with complex conjugations and sounds softer and more "lilting".

! Moderator Note The rules that you agreed to require you to present your topic for discussion here, not just link to a video. Also, remember this is a science forum.

You should try Japanese conditionals!

What is x? How does f(x) relate to electrons oscillating between the centre of the Earth and an atom? It sounds like you are just making stuff up as you go along. What is a "convergent point"? What does "converge the information and the electrical charges" mean? What do you think the "sequences of controlled oscillations" need to "regroup?" (Whatever that means) That is wrong. We know how solar systems evolve (both from theory and observation). Sorry, but you need more than baseless guesses. You need evidence. A model (even if relevant) is not evidence. Do you any observations or measurements that support the idea that electrons oscillate between atoms and the centre of the Earth? Do they all kove at the same time, or do they take it in turns? Why only electrons? Or do all particles perform this crazy dance?