I think it's a matter of the lenses one sees through. In the

I think it's a matter of the lenses one sees through. In the
realm of pure mathematics, Max has an amazing theory that is
very appealing. I don't doubt that it *could* hold true. My main
concern would be
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-world_assumption -
mathematics is a self-supporting, self-stabilizing system of
thought and discourse. It is extraordinarily powerful at
description; as powerful as other forms of language. In some
ways, it is *more* powerful for its internal consistency, for
one thing that is mathematical *will* support something else
that is mathematical.

The same thing cannot hold true for other languages, with looser
constraints. Verbal language, musical language - they each have
grammars and constraints that make them "what they are" - but
they lack internal consistency to the incredible degree of
mathematics.

That being said.. it has no room for non-mathematical things. It
has no room for inconsistencies in the same way that other
languages have. That is its power and strength but also a
potential weak point.

My question is this: Can the map ever become the territory? Is
it possible?

References

Visible links
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-world_assumption