"The questions about unifying maths and string theory are very important." To what extent can string theory plumb the depths of nature? At the U. of Chicago, Professor Chandrasekhar said to me, "Nature is deeper than any scientist's theory." One might divide mathematics into 6 major areas: algebra/category theory, mathematical analysis, applied mathematics/differential equations/numerical analysis, geometry/topology, set theory/mathematical logic/theoretical computer science, and probability/statistics (see https://math.berkeley.edu/research/areas). In the future, each of these 6 major areas might have a formulation in terms of string theory.
In reply to an email request for criticism concerning my essay, Professor Edward Witten has kindly provided the following comments:
"Dear Mr. Brown,
I think the best answer to your question is that the opinions of string theorists about MOND are not very important, what is more important are the opinions of astronomers who really know well all the data. However, I can see a lot of obvious reasons that people are skeptical about MOND. For example, gravitational lenses were discovered after MOND was put forward, and dark matter appears to participate in lensing as one would expect in General Relativity. The universe is a complicated place with a lot of colliding galaxies, clusters of galaxies, large scale structure etc. General Relativity gives a description of all this that appears to work as far as we can test it, which is a lot although not everything one would want to test. MOND is a sort of one-galaxy-at-a-time description so it is probably hard to apply MOND to a lot of things. Finally, one really has to stand on one's head to reconcile MOND with what is well-established about relativistic physics, and the results are pretty obscure and far-fetched looking. None of these comments, however, have anything at all to do with string theory. They are just based on physics that is much better-established and down-to-earth."
Let us assume my quantum theory of gravity ("Wolframian string theory") is empirically wrong. Through study of the work of McGaugh and Kroupa, I strongly believe the MIlgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. My guess is that the majority of experts on dark matter are incorrect and that Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski are correct. Consider 2 quotations:
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Einstein
"Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas, often simply by living with them for so long." - Francis Crick, "What Mad Pursuit", page 141
The empirical evidence backs Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski, in so far as my judgment has any validity whatsoever.