>6. Are these finite strings of symbol sequences – the form of our mathematics and languages – necessary features of physical reality, or do they instead reflec

>6. Are these finite strings of symbol sequences – the form of our mathematics and languages – necessary features of physical reality, or do they instead reflect the limits of our ability to formalise aspects of reality? No, the symbols are the map, not the territory. We know formal systems are incomplete thanks to Gödel. Informal systems, on the other hand, can keep going. If we find a bit of territory that we can't describe, we'll invent or refine existing symbols to the point that we can map it, and then continue.