In this case, it may be. The territory is never observed other than through maps, and the maps are all math. That is to say, the maps may be of the same &quot;stuff&quot; as the territory, and as the differences between the maps and the territory are erased, eventually you arrive at the map being the territory.<p>At least, they are all math beyond those subjective observations that are possible through the human senses. You might think that some hot gas is &quot;glowing blue&quot;, and that this is not &quot;math&quot; to you in any sense, but a more advanced understanding of the light emanating from it gives us a spectrum, and that is just a math function.<p>Of course when we look at an actual map of some place, we know that the place isn&#x27;t a picture with symbols denoting its features. It&#x27;s not so clear for features of the universe. When you&#x27;re far from the bottom, the descriptions look like maps. The mass and acceleration arrows on a free body diagram of an automobile aren&#x27;t the automobile; it&#x27;s all just a diagram.<p>But the more detailed you make the description of something, the less of a distinction there is between the description and the thing! At some point, the description must be the thing. (If it isn&#x27;t then just alter whatever is different between the two and patch the description; then repeat.)<p>Another thing to keep in mind is that math <i>itself</i> has map&#x2F;territory descriptions. The formula or graph representing a mathematical object isn&#x27;t that object.<p>When we say that the universe may just be math, we don&#x27;t mean that the written math is the universe, but rather that the abstract math described by those representations is identifiable with what is real: the map isn&#x27;t the territory, but those two territories are identifiable with each other!