I have a problem understanding why if you speak in ruliads, that you don’t under

I have a problem understanding why if you speak in ruliads, that you don’t understand the limits of mathematics and mathematical reducibility, limits of computation, limits of adversarial simulation, and limits of commensurability, because of limits of categorization.
All of mathematics is purely statistical (approximate). That’s why it’s valuable. And very little of the universe is quantifiable. That does not mean it can’t be rendered commensurable, but commensurability results in supply-demand (entropy-negative entropy) competitions, and adversarialism results in overlapping supply-demand competitions.
So you’re crippled by mathiness: the oldest cognitive error in western civilization. from that error evolved one-ness (universalism), and justifications, and proof, when all three of those concepts are false. A proof is a statement of possibility, justifications tell us nothing, only falsification does, all logic is falsificationary, telling us only that statements survive. There is no ideal human, only a distribution of male and female, across age and ability, in an adversarial competition between reproductive strategies, and resulting class, ethnicity, national, and civilizational strategies. And the calculation is performed by accumulated adversarial competitions by a vast hierarchy of supply demand competitions where cooperation functions as the only possible ‘equals’ sign, that tells us we have discovered a condition of reciprocity, that is the cognitive social and living equivalent of physical disambiguation of energy into mass.