Hi dear Eckard,

I have read your essay (in known meaning) and I feel that you are one person who are inclined to bitterly criticism. My dear, there is small quantity people who like such persons. (I think for this your position in the rating list looks not so happy!) In my opinion however, any valuable thing impossible to created without serious criticism. But this is the reality. For example, we well understanding what will happen if the critic-wolf will be absent in the forest, - and we continue kill them. So I can be fully with you and even good supporting to you (because me also are somewhat critic!) let me give you one technological advice only - It will better to take one concrete nail and to bit it to end! You can try, for example, to cut whole physics by Occam's razor - to see what remain there after? (I am trying do this in my works) I do not know how will useful my support to you but I am going to do it.

Good wishes to you, in your hard work.

Dear Sir,

You are absolutely right about the central role of the Observer, because, without observation, nothing exists for the system. By this, we imply the triplet of the Observer, the Observed and the Mechanism of Observation. The last two make sense only if the Observer observes. For this reason, "his own ability and rightness of actions" cannot be questioned or even discussed, as it is the be all and end all of all perceptions. We cannot even imagine anything beyond or contrary to what is observed, though we can compare between what is observed. Since there is no equation for observer, it is beyond mathematics also.

You are also right about the indignity piled upon us by the superstitious lot, who blindly believed LHC to such an extent that when in July 2012 it declared the discovery of the so-called God particle, they were euphoric, but ignored it when LHC declared in December the same year that they have not yet discovered the Higg's boson, but what they found was Higg-like. They also did not protest when it was reported that it gave mass to all particles, though in reality, if the theory is ultimately proved correct, it provided mass only via weak interaction, which is less than 1% of the total mass. We pity them because they do not even know what they are talking about. Look at the large number of different approaches or formulations to the foundations of QM - many contradicting each other. Then there are various interpretations. Can we call it a coherent theory?

The physics community blindly accepts rigid, linear ideas about the nature of space, time, dimension, etc. These theories provide conceptual convenience and attractive simplicity for pattern analysis, but at the cost of ignoring equally-plausible alternative interpretations of observed phenomena that could possibly have explained the universe better. Modern theories do not give a precise definition of the technical terms used, but give an operational definition that can be manipulated according to convenience. Wigner defined mathematics as the science of skillful operations with concepts and rules invented just for this purpose. This is too open-ended. What is skillful operation? What are the concepts and Rules? Who invented them? What is the purpose? Do all concepts and rules have to be mathematical? Wigner says: The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible, but leaves out what is permissible and what is not; leaving scope for manipulation.

Wigner admits not only the incompleteness of mathematics but also its manipulation according to the aesthetic sense of the operator. He gives the example of complex numbers and burrowing from Hilbert, admits: Certainly, nothing in our experience suggests the introduction of these quantities. Indeed, if a mathematician is asked to justify his interest in complex numbers, he will point, with some indignation, to the many beautiful theorems in the theory of equations, of power series, and of analytic functions in general, which owe their origin to the introduction of complex numbers. The mathematician is not willing to give up his interest in these most beautiful accomplishments of his genius. A reverse self-fulfilling effect!

Mathematics is the ordered accumulation and reduction in numbers of the same class (linear or vector) or partially similar class (non-linear or set) of objects. Coding or information is related to some physical objects. We cannot detach the physical objects from codes and say that the code or information has an independent existence - pi is in the sky! We believe in understanding the physical world through mathematics, but not creating the physical world through mathematics.

We thoroughly enjoyed your essay.

Regards,

basudeba

Many thanks dear basudeba, for your kindly words and mostly, for your meaningful remarks on the relation of reality, math and physics. I can add only one remark - many of us have thinking that the God had special intention - to hid from us the secrets of his creation. I am thinking (and I see that you also!) that the problem of cognition are linked with us, but not with the Creator!

I wish you all the best!

Hello George,

I really enjoyed your essay. I loved quote about Bruno- "Do you think the fuel will be enough?', but more seriously found myself nodding in agreement to observations such as this:

"I think it may be enough to remember that mathematics has been our valuable language - tool, created and developed by us to make our job easier. As we see now, it has become some omnipotent - cabalistic knowledge, with hurried hands of advanced theorists, who have long believed that it may guide them to incredible new successes!"

I am not sure if he's right, but see you like a prophet crying in the wilderness who should be paid attention to.

It struck me that perhaps the change physics seems to need to escape its current dead end will come from a prophet/outsider from beyond the geographical or institutional centers of physics.

I wish you Godspeed in that,

Rick Searle

Dear Rick

Your favorable words are over of any my expectations! It's very encouraging for me to meet with people who preferring thinking by own head. We know the bosses always are right in life. I think, however in the science every thinker must be free to feel himself an small prophet. Then we can cry in our deserts, hoping somebody will passed nearest! Now I'm thinking it may really happen.

Thank you, and my best wishes to you!

Dear George,

I am responding to the note that you left on my essay. But then you chose not to mention anything about the essay.

I perused your essay first time on 22nd March. While reading, I got the impression that your central theme is to bring to the fore the problems in modern scientific thinking and what plagues science today in general. I agreed with several of those observations. So I also wrote a note of response about that. But as I read further, I noticed that you have a scientific proposal of your own for the contest.

I do agree with the conclusion though: Thus, it will be a simple lexical mistake to say - "math defines or manages things", since natural laws do this. Thus, mathematics is our tool that cannot work by itself, rule something, or give us useful results.

But, I could not follow the entire logic leading to that. So, I decided not to rate the essay.

Rajiv

Dear George,

I would ask you something, reading your amazing essay. The matter is I have read somewhere that famous Wolfgang Pauli had bitterly joking before he died, by saying: "when I die the first thing for me it will be to ask of devil - where from arises the alpha (1/137)?" Moreover, brilliant Feynman has written: "this mysterious number is a punishment of God to all physicists, as till now we have not even serious idea where from it appears!" So, I has come into shock when I has find in your papers that this mystery is solved! Moreover, I seen there that 2-3 professors have confirmed correctness your solution of this unimaginable problem. But I still would like asking you - Is it really this like that? I see your essay as high - valuable!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

    Dear Vladimir

    I will answer simply as your question is - yes, my dear! I have solved this problem. The matter is however, that the market management does not need to see this; they have preferred to see how people beating by their heads on the wall... Regarding on this I can suggest you rereading the "Gulliver's Travels" of amazing English classic's Jonathan Swift, - namely, the chapter devoted to "Grand Academy of Lagado." I think our present situation somewhat close to this.

    Thanks for attention and Best wishes to you!

    6 days later

    George Kirokasyan,

    I completely agree with you on the following points: 'the significance of math apparatus was elevated to some unexplainable - mystical level'; 'All kinds of particles are formed from the same primordial substance. The huge numbers of different unstable particles cannot represent any interest and perceptivity for study'.

    However, I disagree with the tone of the statement 'mathematics is our tool that cannot work by itself'. Mathematics is an 'available tool', but not 'our tool' in the sense that even without us the tool exists. No body can defy mathematical laws, not even an omnipotent creator. Anything that goes against mathematical laws is a 'miracle'. It is said that God reveals himself through miracles, not that he defies mathematical laws, but makes it appear as if mathematical laws are defied.

    Coming to Newton, he explained the terms 'mass, motion, acceleration, energy, force and work', and identified the mathematical relation between these. The equation for kinetic energy E=mv2/2, perfectly agrees with the equation for force F=ma. Here, he considered 'mass' as a property of matter, and 'the rest' as something imposed on matter.

    However when he explained gravity, he considered gravity as force, and linked it to matter, thereby inadvertently linking force (or at least a part of it) to matter. Thinking in retrospect, he could have easily linked motion also to matter as a property.

    Excuse me, here I mention something about my theory, 'Finiteness theory'. My theory is based on Newtonian physics with two modifications: (i). Motion at speed 'c' is a property of matter (ii). Force is reaction to that motion. I think these modifications are enough to make Newtonian physics explain everything in the physical world. I have nearly completed my alternate model.

    Our views coincide regarding the 'present state of physics' and also regarding 'how it should have been'. As you mentioned in another post, you also have some alternate approach. I would like to know how far you have reached, whether it is just in the 'basic-level' or 'nearly-complete level'.

    Jose P Koshy

      Dear Koshy

      If we kill all mathematicians and burn all handbooks then what will remain after? I can tell you that there will remains the quantity conservation laws only that we can find again experimentally (1=1 =/ 0). However, somebody can build the same math apparatus again by using this mentioned single principle only. The evidence of this can serve binary calculus system where every kind of possible calculus transformed to sum of nulls and units. This shows the smallest (technical only) role of math apparatus in the scientific research and its unnecessary elevation to mystically significance. For you It will very difficult be agree with this, - but you try do it for yourself!