## Strictly Speaking Can’t! Natural Language Won’t?

*Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way.* **The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.**

Common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. *Modern*** Mathematics pays the price for that precision by being ***overly complex*** and subservient to ***causal and compositional relations.*** These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.**

Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. *Modern*** pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of ***inherent purpose*** in its ‘tool set’.**

With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. **Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!**

The mono-logical gaze with its incipient *ontological foundation,* as found in (modern) pure mathematics, is too *myopic.* That’s why languages such as Category Theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. **They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us ***why*** we wanted to get there in the first place!**

It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: *“What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?”* (what purpose) or *“What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?”* or *“Why does it choose to do that?* and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.

**Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see them and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).**

Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.

**Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?**

**Why coincidence and not synchronicity?**

**Why entropy and not centropy?**

…

**Why particle and not field?**

(many more examples…)

```
```

## Is Mathematics Or Philosophy More Fundamental?

**Is Mathematics Or Philosophy More Fundamental?**

Answer: **Philosophy is more fundamental than mathematics.**

This is changing, but mathematics is incapable at this time of *comprehensively* describing *epistemology,* whereas, philosophy can.

Hence; mathematics is restrained to pure *ontology.* It does not reach far enough into the universe to distinguish anything other than *ontologies.* This will change soon. I am working on exactly this problem. See http://mathematica-universalis.com for more information on my work. (I’m not selling anything on this site.)

Also, mathematics cannot be done without expressing some kind of philosophy to underlie any axioms which it needs to function.

**PROOF:**

Implication is a ‘given’ in mathematics. **It assumes a ***relation*** which we call ***implication.* Mathematics certainly ‘consumes’ them as a means to create inferences, *but the inference form, the antecedent, and the consequent are implicit axioms based upon an underlying metaphysics.*

**Ergo: ***philosophy*** is more ***general*** and ***universal*** than mathematics.**

Often epistemology is considered separate from metaphysics, but that is incorrect, because you cannot answer questions as to ‘How do we know?” without an underlying metaphysical framework within which such a question and answer can be considered.