I wanted to revisit this statement because I feel there is an inherent weakness in that argument. It is true that *today* we can have explanatory narratives accompanying the maths themselves, because we are beginning to understand what really goes on in the universe..
But before the invention of human symbolic mathematics which formally (scientifically) describe the mathematical functions of the universe , many narrative attempts in many languages had been made to describe the (spiritual) nature of the universe, and they were all wrong, with a few exceptions, such as Pythagoras, Plato, Hypatia, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc. But then, in the early days many of these brilliant minds were silenced by accusations of engaging in *blasphemy* or *witchcraft* and being in "league with the devil", due to the existing *narratives* (scriptures) of those days.
You again seem to be confusing the mere language with the functions that the language describes, tend giving importance to the language used rather than to the discovery of the function.
Any language can describe the function, but that does not mean the function is "of the language". If mathematics is the language then describing something in that language does not inherently make something mathematical any more than describing something in Japanese makes that thing japaneses...
unless we also use the term "mathematical" to describe the nature of the function, which just so happens to be most succinctly and efficiently written in the language of mathematics, the language being the specific shorthand developed to efficiently describe the functions.
But you are still equating the two (the language and the functions themselves) when to do so is unwarranted and, as shown, fallacious, although you can't seem to accept the argument that demonstrates this.
How many *narratives* (pick your language) of the nature of the universe have been trashed and relegated to the dumpster? A living sentient god, the hand of god, devil, angels, demons, demonic possession, ghoulies, ghosties, miracles, heaven, hell, purgatory, anger, vengeance, jealousy, divine instructions, "god works in mysterious ways"!!!! etc, etc, etc.......... the list goes on. All these books and scriptures were early attempts to explain the nature of Universal functions. Did they accurately describe the nature (essence) of the universe? I think not.
Yet the universe still operated, the functions still existed, prior to the language that most efficiently describes them. Thus there is indeed separation between the language and the functions themselves, I am sure you must now agree.
The Egyptian pyramids were constructed employing *Pi* long before we recognized it was a universal mathematical constant. The simple fact was that Egyptians used *wheels* to measure distances and thus unwittingly used *Pi* to construct these great works.
To be blunt: so what?
That they did this and didn't have the language of mathematics shows quote clearly the distinction between the two, surely? Yet you continue to argue, for some reason, for the language being a key factor in your argument? Your thinking seems vague and confused, even if at the heart of it, that the functions themselves are key, seems quite reasonable.
Thus comparing the language of mathematics (symbolically or by narrative) to subjective and ignorant human narrative language of Universal functions is not a strong argument and therefore trivial in respect to Truth.
You have been arguing for the importance of maths due to the symbolic language we use for it, yet here you have argued that the functions exist whether we have the language or not (which I agree with) - the same way the sea exists whether or not we have a word for it - and then you conclude that the language of maths is somehow not to be considered as just another language?? Even though as a language it conforms exactly to the role of any other language: the symbolic/written representation of what we wish to convey.
Your conclusion simply does not follow your argument.
It was only after real measurements were made by the founders of mathematics and formally described in symbolic language, that our *understanding* of how the universe functions can be described (approximated) by verbal communication.
We need only look at this thread to see how inexact narratives can be. Personally I enjoy this type of exchange, because "understanding" is an evolutionary process and as interested layman I learn from every exchange and eventually (hopefully) will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and gain a good understanding of the basic natural universal functions.
The argument of narratives often being inexact is merely an argument from complexity. The symbolic language of maths is regimented, conscise and efficient, governed by a few rules. The narrative language less so. That the rules of the language of maths conform to the rules of the functions they are trying to describe is why the language is efficient, but it is still just a language.
Talk and argue about the nature of the functions themselves, but arguments trying to use the language of maths itself as somehow elevating what it describes seem flawed.
Focus on the functions that are being described, how they follow certain rules etc, how every operational system seems derived from those rules, and you would get further than following this issue of language, IMHO.
p.s. as an ex-musician, I gained an understanding of the wave function, harmonics, interference, and last but not least *empathic response*, not only in humans but in all living and perhaps even in inanimate matter. "Movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction"..
One is never an ex-musician. One either is musician or one is not.
But don't go down the route of suggesting empathic responses in inanimate objects: that way lies pure woo.