Mr. Klingman,

I am looking forward to reading your essay, I am currently far behind on my reading. Thank you for reading my essay. There is no way to tell if counting can exist without logic since my would need logic to prove (or disprove) this point. Counting without logic seems impossible, but can you prove it?

The idea that the Universe is built on "logic" or "mathematics" is the same as saying the Universe is built on the English language or images we see. You can not start with the assumption that the model is the thing itself. The model must be outside the system to prove the system. We might never be able to prove the Universe, but a useful model is a wonderful thing. You cannot map a forest while chained to one tree in that forest.

All the Best,

Jeff

The date on this post is April fool's day and I am sure you posted this to all the other essays, but it did make me feel good. I wish I had as good of a review from a "real" post.

Hi Jeff--

I enjoyed reading your essay. You must have the best title of any essay in the contest. It is humorous and yet perfectly coveys the point of your message. Your distinction between mathematical and physical proof is exactly correct, in my opinion. As for non-logical communications, my guess is that's what Madhyamaka Buddhists (and others) think that they are doing when they meditate.

All-in-all, congratulations!

Best regards,

Bill.

    Bill,

    Thank you for reading my essay. Too many essays to read and too little time to read them all. My essay is about our limits of understanding, which many find as a sad thing, but I think limits are interesting. Perhaps you have found a case of non-logical communication (one hand clapping), now prove it. I see your essay is climbing the ratings, best of luck.

    All the best,

    Jeff

    actually I had commented naturally, but the compliment to you in your view actually happened it to be a prank!

    Which I think a "real" april fool to you!

    - Best Regards,

    Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

    5 days later

    Dear Michael,

    I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

    All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

    Joe Fisher

    Jeff,

    Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I've read to assure I've rated them. Some of us in retirement have the luxury of time. I find that I rated yours on 3/13, rating it as one I could immediately relate to. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

    Jim

    6 days later

    Jeff,

    Thank you for your kind words, but especially for seriously reading my essay.

    Jim

    Jeff

    Thanks for your kind comments on my essay. Reading yours I can see you're a perceptive 'out of the bigger box' thinker. I particularly liked;

    'Mathematics 聽requires 聽your 聽trust 聽to 聽function. 聽It 聽is 聽up 聽to 聽you 聽to 聽decide 聽if 聽you 聽are 聽being 聽conned.'

    'Science 聽cannot 聽find 聽truth, 聽but 聽can 聽find 聽understanding 聽and 聽failure 聽is 聽an 聽important 聽tool 聽in 聽understanding.' 聽

    'It 聽is 聽hard 聽to 聽image 聽physics 聽without 聽mathematics,聽but 聽examples are all 聽around 聽us'

    'If we wish to understand what the Moon is like we want to see pictures'

    I find 3D pictures to be of massive importance, containing and rationalising great complexity and also highly memorable, adding motion is a multiplier. My video in an exercise in compresses 10 volumes of explanations and calculations into 9 minutes (though should be 30!) And yes; it's important new physics!

    I also liked you reminder that Arabic numerals are not the only way of describing cardinalisation. I quite like the Mayan system, of simple symbols (dashes etc) where relative 'position' dictates function. When people get too pedantic about maths as the 'only' language of physics I sometimes compare the manipulations of ancient Arabic symbols we use to Tarot cards. If poorly used they can have equal meaning as descriptors of m natures mechanisms!

    Anyway very well done. Shame it seems it won't be in the finalists even after my score.

    Peter

      Peter,

      Thank you for reading my essay and the comments. When I saw the number of essays, I knew I did not have a chance.

      Hope your essay does well,

      Jeff