A reason (beyond hardware limits) math cannot model weather?

Is the only reason that math cannot model weather far in advance (among other things such as boiling water patterns) because it would require too much computational power? Or is there more to it? Is weather, et al too "organic" and thus math is not applicable to it?

>>10
Schrödinger’s cat in box trick illustrates the absurdity of using probability to explain anything. The interpretations rely on pretzel-like linguistic tricks to try and make it seem plausible that the act of measurement creates something measurable out of a set of probabilities. Whether you subscribe to "many worlds" interpretation or Copenhagen, you are still left having to assume that human perception has a creative role to play in reality. But this is simply an interpretation of a set of equations, except it is more than that because it claims the interpretation can make an objective "judgement" on the equations. If the interpretation creates the reality underlying the mathematical model, then you are entering into the realm of philosophy and using math tricks to justify thought-based assumption. It gets all back to front. Suddenly math is creating concepts that cannot be tested or proven, yet one must accept that these concepts are inherent to reality or the entire framework collapses. That isn't right. If math leads to concepts indistinguishable from spiritual and philosophical thought, then math is not as valuable or reliable a tool for science as previously thought. It is this situation that has led me to abandon traditional math entirely. Now I use the Daoist tradition of The Number. All my math now only uses one symbol, the essential symbol: 9. Through removing all other symbols, I am able to develop a framework of reality so precise and accurate that a word-based interpretation is impossible. We are reaching the very essence of reality here, people.