> It's not necessary. I didn't mean "necessary" in the sense of modal logic, but in a more colloquial sense. Physical laws as known to us today are described u

> It's not necessary. I didn't mean "necessary" in the sense of modal logic, but in a more colloquial sense. Physical laws as known to us today are described using mathematics. We know of no other viable ways to describe them. In that sense, (a subset of) mathematics is necessary for this purpose. It was just meant as a restatement of the concept of unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in a more natural language. > The real world has no obligation to be describable by mathematics. There is no obligation, but that it is so in our particular world is undeniable fact.