Originally Posted by

**exchemist**
Your last line makes the most sense.

The job of science - including physics - is to model physical reality. Mathematics is a type of quantitative logic that is a powerful tool to help build such models. It is plain that things may be logically possible in mathematics that do not reflect the physical world.

It is therefore pointless (geddit?) to assign physical properties to purely mathematical entities.

There are many mathematical physicists and do they also have their own science called mathematical physics.

Perhaps I am talking now about theoretical physics and theoretical physicists. How many times did you see

them writing about Eugene Wigner's

*The Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences.*
I think that it is rather a weakness of mathematics to be used as an absolute truth in physics, where the truth is often

contextual or "relative". Another problem arises of the freedom in mathematics to define almost anything as true,

as I am arguing in this thread that one could define a point in physics to be a fermion or a boson, and neither of these

definitions are satisfying just because physics does not work according to definitions alone. A point is physics is not

a "thing" as Dywyddyr said. A point in physics does not become a "thing" even if it defined as a "thing".

Otherwise we will end up to "an overly-ambitious (and unjustified) extrapolation" as Dywyddyr said.

I think that the problem is serious, physics is infected with mathematics, and it can be misleading to trust in

tools of logic as exactly modelling the physical world. Think about the wave-particle dualism. What does it mean?

Dualism refers to a mathematical concept, can it be a foundation of quantum mechanics? The problem is

how to understand the meaning of this dualism, the meaning of the words and definitions. Does the wave-particle

dualism mean that a wave is a particle, although that does not make sense in real world. A wave is a wave, a particle

is a particle.