Mohit Das
Important and interesting essay. But I have questions about the problem of foundations of fundamental sciences.
You write:
<<Mathematics provides a language for expressing physical theories, and it allows physicists to make precise predictions and calculations.>>
Why did "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin "Trouble with Physics"), "crisis of interpretation and representation" (Romanovskaya T.B. "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style" ), "loss of certainty" (Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty"), "crisis of understanding" (J. Horgan "The End of Science", Kopeikin K.V. "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of the soul : Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics")?
Maybe Whitehead and Wheeler are right after all?
A.N. Whitehead: “A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge.
John A. Wheeler: "Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers."
Philosophy - the most rigorous Science?
Have you ever dealt with the "problem of the millennium No. 1" - the ontological justification of mathematics (ontological basification)?
<<For example, Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometries use different axioms, but both have applications in physics and engineering.>>
Have you tried to find a single axiom (Meta-Axiom) not only for geometry, but for the entire system of knowledge? (The problem of ontological justification / substantiation of knowledge)
<<...but the concept of STRUCTURE is atrans-disciplinary concept.>>
and then build an ontologically justified single Super Structure as the basis of knowledge (Primordial Generating Structure, "la Structure Mère")?
