>8. Is it a lucky coincidence that mathematical and physical reality can be formulated in terms of our current cognitive abilities, or is it just that, tautolog

>8. Is it a lucky coincidence that mathematical and physical reality can be formulated in terms of our current cognitive abilities, or is it just that, tautologically, we cannot conceive of any aspects of mathematical and physical reality that cannot be formulated in terms of our cognitive capabilities? It's not luck. It's a forcing function. We make new words, or overload existing ones, to describe new things all the time. If we can see/detect/measure something, we'll come up with words to describe it, and theories and equations that model it. We discover some new fact or phenomenon about the universe, and start to ponder. Since we're always grinding ideas up against each outer in the background in our minds, at some point, that new bit of knowledge will mate up with a compatible surface on some other chunk, and the first person has the "ah ha" moment. If we're lucky they can then relate it to others, and the process continues. Otherwise, it takes more tries in more people, until eventually, we (as a whole) have extended our knowledge to formally include this new chunk. I'm of the firm belief that given sufficient time and budget, there's nothing we can't eventually understand.