Meanwhile I drift on uncertain seas; smooth-tongued chance flatters me; forward and backward I look, and still see no end.
—Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
(Ignore the nonsense below.)
“The reason that none of these explanations seem to ring true is that we are trying model quantum phenomena in a language that was developed in a very classical world. To explain quantum computing adequately, we need to adopt a new language, the language of mathematics.”
With its capacity for describing uncertainty, reconciling contradictions, capturing complex entanglements, and self-correcting in the face of change, human language is perfectly well-suited to describe quantum systems, even more so than many other formalisms, which are often too strict or brittle to handle real-world ambiguity.
And better yet, language is much easier to handle. All that greek junk might be more useful for algorithmic calculation and measurement—although Arabian mathematicians did pretty well without it—but language still scores much better on meaning and understanding.
Formal, axiomatic, deterministic, and reductionist—these supposedly “classical” approaches came on the scene extremely late, considering. They are a recent, ad hoc extension. A deviation from the norm.
Besides, many ill-suited “classical” approaches were just as much defined in the language of mathematics as these new approaches. I mean, Newton even put math in the title.