When we (humans) discuss reality, we divide it into two orthogonal phenomena: things and change, or pattern and process.
The problem with this division is that it portrays reality as an orthogonal relationship, for as such its properties can’t be investigated both consistently and unambiguously. Instead, the division itself males a both consistent and unambiguous investigation of its properties impossible.
This, my friends, is the driving force for our never-ending discussion about reality.
Luckily, mathematics can, and already has bypassed this obstacle in modeling reality. We can thus model reality both consistently and unambiguously, although we can’t investigate its properties both consistently and unambiguously. We can thus understand how reality works, but not what it is.
Does this sound familiar? Isn’t it just the same as with ourselves – we can understand how we work, but not what we are.