Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Odessa Sabah: on 1/5/17 at 13:07pm UTC, wrote I think that you're right when you're saying, in the third paragraph, that...

En Passant: on 4/24/15 at 1:24am UTC, wrote Gary, I don’t want to insult Sujatha Jagannathan in case she is not an...

Gary Simpson: on 4/21/15 at 18:22pm UTC, wrote Ahhhhh ... finally a comment that seems appropriate. Either you are a...

Sujatha Jagannathan: on 4/21/15 at 16:13pm UTC, wrote In this case I want to inform you the bitter fact that the modern day maths...

Gary Simpson: on 4/21/15 at 13:37pm UTC, wrote En, I suspect that someone is conducting a Turing test. Many of her...

En Passant: on 4/21/15 at 7:53am UTC, wrote Dear Sujatha, Your last name (in Sanskrit) means something like “the man...

En Passant: on 4/21/15 at 7:32am UTC, wrote Dear Alma, I actually have many contacts with Romanians. They are...

En Passant: on 4/21/15 at 7:13am UTC, wrote Dear Vincent, I am glad you understood what I was saying. And I thank you...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "They are proud, because they have solved some problems, which are..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, I do have an interest in the history, but not as much as I used..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment presents 3 causally linked state..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Roger Granet: "Well put! Physics is hard, but biochemistry (my area), other sciences..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "BTW The neck scarves are a promotional souvenir given out at non sports..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Trick or Truth: the Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics by En Passant [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author En Passant wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 12:48 GMT
Essay Abstract

Mathematics for the most part deals with quantities. In some, relatively speaking, more recent kinds of math, particular properties are ascribed to certain terms that comprise it. It is fully analogous to what physics does. We posit the existence of certain (for lack of a more apt noun) qualities, and then use math to express a quantitative relation to something else. Just look at any equation that is used by physicists. It states that whatever is on its left side is equal to an amount of another quality on its right side. No, it is not, despite what Randall claims, that ultimately everything is reducible to a number. The number 2 can equally apply to a particle’s spin, but also to 2 degrees Kelvin, and to the two people in front of you at the checkout counter. The number 2 does not mean anything by itself. It needs context at minimum, and more ordinarily needs to be defined in terms of what it refers to.

Author Bio

I was raised to be the ultimate social sciences person. Science and business were foreign to me. Nevertheless, I eventually chose to be a business person, and became a VP Finance of an international company. I never lost sight of philosophy (my first and lasting interest), and was a member of MENSA and ISPE (International Society for Philosophical Enquiry) for many years. Currently, I write technical material for private industry, as it seems that understanding of engineering matters is not often paired with the ability to write about it. I hold several university degrees and professional certifications (not that it pertains).

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear En,

I agree that: it has to be "two of something", this is one main connection for the "maths of physics". Thanks for reminding it to us.

All the best,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author En Passant replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear Michel,

Thank you for your comment, and for taking time to read my essay. I did read your essay so I could better understand the intent in your comment (above). Over the next couple of days I will make a comment about your essay, once I have given it more thought.

En

Bookmark and Share


Michel Planat replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear En,

Take your time. Before writing my comment I was wandering through nature that is quite beautiful around and I was precisely asking myself what is the problem with these numbers, I mean 10^53, 10^-34 and other numbers, that one gets from the Monster Group. What you say is in perfect agreement with my conclusion, what matters is just to put units on numbers, otherwise they just mean nothing. This is quite simple but the axiomatization of our physical theories leads us to hide this evidence that any engineer perfectly knows and applies.

Cheers,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 18:13 GMT
Dear En,

You are entirely right. Very often in my work, I observed the relationship. But I never found it fully satisfactory.

An example is the investigation of the so-called 1/f noise in highly stable oscillators, you can find a copy of the work here "1/f noise, the measurement of time and number theory"

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin//zeta
/NTandtime.htm

Here you see/measure the approximation of real numbers by their continued fraction expansions. This is a classical example of the feedback of the measurement on the object.

The quantum measurements are even more impressive with the concept of contextuality which essentially means that the object is entirely shaped by all commutative/compatible observables.

It is often sayed that mathematics is tautologic that for me means that if there is a rich enough mathematical object, let's say the Monster Group, or Mandelbrot's set or another one, then its structure should fit the knowledge we have of the physical constants. We are far from this goal although many are trying to guess. But there are many other interesting problems: the hidden mass, the emergence of life and DNA, and so on. It was simpler for me to use Hawking's quote.

But you are right, that "something is not a number".

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 20:09 GMT
En,

Is "En Passant" a pseudonym? I always assumed that anyone who might be a "big name" and who wanted to participate in a contest such as this would use a pseudonym ...

In any event, what you have written is short, direct, to the point, and true. It is essential to distinguish between the different types of "stuff" that are operated upon by mathematics. I am an engineer by education and I always check myself by making sure that my units are correct and consistent. I have caught more than a few errors by using this freshman level skill.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author En Passant replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 03:21 GMT
Gary,

The pseudonym has a more banal purpose than you envision. It has to do with my work (separation of personal and corporate/commercial messaging).

Thank you for your comment. I was happy to see your pragmatic assessment of the ideas in my essay.

I look forward to your writing about other topics.

En

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 22:02 GMT
Dear En Passant,

Thanks for your well thought out comments and questions on my essay. As both Michel and Gary observe above, I believe you shine a light on the sterile concept of 'number' in math versus the mathematical relations between "things" in physics. You say:

"The correct selection of somethings and the appropriate selection of the numerical relations among somethings is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Martin Punin wrote on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 11:22 GMT
Dear En

I just posted on my own forum a reply to your comment. I have read a first time your essay which is interesting because of its atypical aspects doubtlessly in connection with your pseudonym since it should be one, isn't it? However, precisely because of the atypical aspect of your essay, I have to read it again and to think about how to respond. But it would be done soon.

Best regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Martin Punin wrote on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 13:07 GMT
Dear En,

I just posted a long but neverless partial answer to your questions.

Kind regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Marc Séguin wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 01:51 GMT
Dear "En passant",

I think you perfectly answer Wigner's question when you say:

"There is no mystery. Whenever you find a consistent (repeatable) observation, it automatically means that you can use math to make utilitarian sense of it."

There's not much more to say... as long as we interpret this year's FQXi question as the relationship between known (or potentially known) mathematics and the observable (or potentially observable) universe. Of course, there's always the "deeper" question (perhaps too deep for science, and destined to remain in the realm of philosophy): what is the relationship between "all of mathematics" (in the limit that would be accessible to an infinitely intelligent mathematician) and the totality of all that physically exists?

Thank you for a refreshingly short and lucid essay!

Marc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author En Passant replied on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear Marc,

I was not sure whether or not to view with suspicion any comments dated April 1st.

Nevertheless, thank you first of all for reading my essay, and for treating it kindly. I took a brief look at your own essay so I could better understand your comment (I will read your essay in great detail and respond on your page with my comment this week).

Consequently, the following lines are very preliminary and should only be taken as an indication of “first thoughts.”

It appears that there is a difference between what you understand by “mathematics” and what I think it is. But we may at least gain a mutual understanding of each other’s position if we compare our respective general understanding of what exists and how we know things (I didn’t want to use “them” big words here).

Of course, the issue you describe in the 2nd half of your third paragraph will be understood more clearly once we have done what I have just said.

I am also posting this comment on your essay page so as to acknowledge your comment on mine.

En

Bookmark and Share


Member Marc Séguin replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 20:59 GMT
Dear "En Passant",

Thank you for the detailed comments you left on my essay's page on April 3. They are much appreciated!

Indeed, we all start with basic assumptions. Mine is that there is a "monist" way to understand the world, a fundamental level of reality that can account for all that exists and is self-existing and self-explanatory --- which I identify with "All of Mathematics", an infinite structure that globally does not contain any information (like the Library of Babel of Borges' short story). On the other hand, you start with the assumption that only those things that we can detect with our senses or with an enhancement of our senses should be said to exist. Then, as I said in my first message, your conclusions are very well argued and follow naturally. I really like the way you put it in the post you left on my page, with the example of the pocket calculator. When I put on my "pragmatic physicist" hat (to borrow the expression from Sophia Magnusdottir's essay), I completely agree with you!

I hope your essay finds the audience it deserves and does well in the contest. All the best!

Marc

P.S. I have posted this reply on my essay's page also.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 17:02 GMT
Hi En,

I agree with your observation that “Whenever you find a consistent (repeatable) observation, it automatically means that you can use math to make utilitarian sense of it,” but I don’t think the conversation should end there, and I do believe there is still a mystery... or at least, a lack of consensus from physicists.

Do you think we can come up with a theory using mathematics that can also sheds light on the things that we observe that aren't systematic and repeatable? And are we talking about repeatable from a classical sense or a probabilistic sense? Should repeating something in a statistical sense even count as repeating something? How do you think areas of mathematics that relate to complexity theory relate to physics? Can we model a universe that has an infinite amount of information? How do you account for the fact that there are aspects of the natural world that physics has made good progress in explaining, while there are still many other areas that seem intractable?

Please check out my Digital Physics movie essay if you get the chance. There are some questions posed at the end of the essay that may interest you. Here’s one that seems relevant to this conversation:

Is one alien’s signal another man’s noise?

Thanks,

Jon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author En Passant replied on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 14:05 GMT
Hi Jon,

Sure, put me on the spot. Couldn’t you just ask me a simple philosophy question instead, or something?

Your questions are about subjects in which I claim no expertise. Answering such questions would be like filling out a polling questionnaire. Unless you are a respected authority, nobody cares about your opinions.

Only one question relates to my essay, and that is the one I will answer. (Yes, a couple of the other questions tangentially connect.)

Re: “Whenever you find a consistent (repeatable) observation, it automatically means that you can use math to make utilitarian sense of it.” Why do I think this is true? It is not based on any theory but rather on informal observation of both nature and science. If something happens consistently (is repeatable), then its behavior usually depends on mechanisms that obey some principles. It seems to me that math can model any repeating process, while attaining at least some compression. The claim could be false, but if so, only in rare cases.

Yes, I will look at your essay.

En

Bookmark and Share



Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 21:02 GMT
Dear En,

I saw your post at Ken Wharton and would like to answer your questions, but because they had nothing to do with his essay I will post the answers here.



"I wonder whether you would be willing to pose your question in an FQXi blog accessible to a larger audience"

Thank you for considering this issue sufficiently important to suggest this, but I am not sure the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 21:30 GMT
BTW, I'm a fellow Mensan.

Best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author En Passant replied on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear Armin,

I will move this discussion to your essay page. The apparently “wrong” prediction of SR is your project. That’s all I need, to have Pentcho Valev go after me.

Please don’t mention this Mensa thing. I am already embarrassed enough. I wrote my essay on the last day just before the deadline, and as I was filling out the form, they sprung this Bio requirement on me. Knowing that I had zero math or physics credentials, I tried to put something in there to gain “respectability.” If I had more time, I would not have said anything besides that I am interested in this subject.

En

Bookmark and Share



Gordon Watson wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 23:41 GMT
En,

Thanks for your comments on my essay and the spirit in which they were offered. Those 11 pages of unused white-space in your own essay would certainly have come in handy!

Now: Given the similarity of our conclusions and the rarity of such challenges* to Wigner's position, I'd welcome any deeper and more critical analysis of my work; especially given your facility with English versus us non-English engineers!

* For easy comparison, here's my conclusion (from the piece that you cited):

3.6. We therefore close with a happy snapshot of Wigner’s (1960:14) views and our own:

… “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”

… Nature speaks in many ways, from big bangs to whispers [like the whisper of an apple falling], but just one grammar, beautiful mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws.

Here's yours: "There is no mystery. Whenever you find a consistent (repeatable) observation, it automatically means that you can use math to make utilitarian sense of it."

So on this small but important point, it seems we agree: There is no mystery.

[…] added for clarity. Cheers; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author En Passant wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 21:36 GMT
Gordon,

Since this is about your essay, I will transfer it to your page (just wait, I will copy the necessary parts).

In the meantime, if you have time and the inclination, you can look up two comments that I have made on other people’s pages. They will give you a strong indication of the reasons that motivate my essay, and (potentially) provide philosophical “grounding” for all realist views.

One is on Peter Martin Punin’s page, so if you go there, look for En Passant wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 04:55 GMT.

The second one is on Marc Séguin’s page. You should look for En Passant wrote on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 18:20 GMT. I intend to continue the discussion (which did not end with Marc alleging that we both make comparable assumptions, but I let him off the hook) on Punin’s page. His position, being Platonist, subsumes the MUH. Being an engineer, you should like my comment on Marc Séguin’s page, as it involves a bicycle chain analogy. (I am just getting you back for your sarcasm - from your comment above: “…especially given your facility with English versus us non-English engineers!...”)

That’s all I will say on my page.

En

Bookmark and Share


Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 02:01 GMT
Thanks En, I'll address the issues and continue this discussion on my page.

But please note: There was no sarcasm in the piece that you quote! The genuine call for help should had been clear (to you, of all people) from the tortured Title of my essay and your own call for me to: "Please have mercy and consider the reader."

With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 01:46 GMT
En, I've responded to your "grounded realism" and calculator/bike analogies on my page.

With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Philip Gibbs wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 20:29 GMT
"There is no mystery"

Have you heard about the connections between Monstrous Moonshine and String Theory? Dont worry about understanding the details. There are some short popular accounts that give the general idea. Don't worry if you dont regard string theory as physics. You just have to accept that it was developed out of physics rather than pure maths. Dont you think the connection is a little mysterious?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author En Passant replied on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 02:25 GMT
Philip,

I think we use the word “mystery” slightly differently. When I believe that there is a rational (in this case mathematical) explanation for something then I don’t call it a mystery. (We just don’t yet know what that explanation is.)

With this in mind, to me the connections between Monstrous Moonshine and String Theory are “interesting” (but not mysterious). I am nearly 100% certain that eventually someone will figure it out.

When you say that it (ST) was developed out of physics rather than pure maths, it makes me wonder about all the stuff I read about it elsewhere. The consensus seems to be that ST is pretty much all math (and no physics). I am also led to believe that the people who developed it were mathematical physicists, and that they started with mathematical representations of “strings,” and “ran with it mathematically from there.” If this is true, then a natural insight would have to be that the properties initially ascribed to the “strings” already “mapped” to Monstrous Moonshine (or at least to something from which MM can be derived).

In any case, once you establish parity between math and physics in a given area, it is only natural to expect math to continue to apply to the same physics (viewed differently) as you develop it. The physics part follows its internal physical logic, and the math just mirrors it. You see it the other way around, and I can conceive of a sense in which your view of things is right.

En

Bookmark and Share



Peter Martin Punin wrote on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear En,

I just put on my forum an answer to your last post; if you wish, the ultimate and final. But it would be regrettable.

Best regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author En Passant replied on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Peter,

I have not yet looked at your page to see the answer you refer to here. But I would welcome our discussion to continue beyond the confines of this forum (which will “expire”). For that (if you don’t mind), please indicate an email address (on your essay page) to which I can write.

I will reply to your latest comment today or tomorrow.

Have a nice weekend.

En

Bookmark and Share



vincent douzal wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 21:38 GMT
Dear En Passant,

Your essay is short, but sound on many points.

Few have raised the case of categories (not in the mathematical sense, more in the spirit of Eleanor Rosch or George Lakoff), your qualities.

The connection you express between mathematics and physics states clearly the basic idea of empirical knowledge, with only a pragmatic criterion, under conditions of repeatability or reproducibility.

I won't paraphrase everything, I'd be longer than you.

Very good points.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author En Passant replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 07:13 GMT
Dear Vincent,

I am glad you understood what I was saying.

And I thank you for reading my essay. You already know that I could not care less about winning anything.

But I am not only studying physics – I have to understand everything. If you would be so kind, could you tell me where your last name comes from?

If I were to place it on a map, it would be somewhere in Western France (similar names also occur somewhere between Turkey and Eastern Europe). If you don’t want to share this info, that’s OK.

En

Bookmark and Share



Alma Ionescu wrote on Apr. 18, 2015 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear En,

This is nice and to the point. Your writing displays an interesting personal stance and I'm sure you enjoyed the exercise. I think that you're right when you're saying, in the third paragraph, that Wigner's expression should not be taken literally as it was more a metaphorical way of encouraging new lines of thought and maybe a feeling of delight in the face of the best known parts of the natural world.

Warm regards,

Alma

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author En Passant replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 07:32 GMT
Dear Alma,

I actually have many contacts with Romanians. They are extremely good at programming, and (in fact) BitDefender (the best antivirus program) is programmed by Romanians.

Don’t worry, the NSA can “get in” anyway. But their interests are not what we worry about (banking, etc.).

En

Bookmark and Share



Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 13:56 GMT
Hands-on conceptualized framed layers!

- Regards

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author En Passant replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 07:53 GMT
Dear Sujatha,

Your last name (in Sanskrit) means something like “the man who has unstoppable force.”

It is simply impossible to take Vedic (Sanskrit) wisdom, and think it is applicable to modern day physics.

I know you would like to make that case, and those people were very wise. But you need experimentation to do science. That did not develop until not that long ago in Europe. Yes, I am aware of Ramanujan and Sun Tzu, and they were brilliant in their way.

Your paternal line is likely to be R1a (possibly Brahmin).

En

Bookmark and Share


Gary D. Simpson replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 13:37 GMT
En,

I suspect that someone is conducting a Turing test. Many of her comments simply do not make any sense.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sujatha Jagannathan replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 16:13 GMT
In this case I want to inform you the bitter fact that the modern day maths emerged from Vedic Maths.

And the other theories derived from "Good-old-Sanskrit", 'Sanskrit' being the mother of all her kin languages.

Gary D. Simpson,

What a business in the forum you exhibit!

Your comments are turning more "Turing" these days since you're doing that business in every comment box, ain't you?

- Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Martin Punin wrote on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear En

I just posted on my forum a reply to your last comments.

Best regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Odessa Qamar Sabah wrote on Jan. 5, 2017 @ 13:07 GMT
I think that you're right when you're saying, in the third paragraph, that Wigner's expression should not be taken literally as it was more a metaphorical way of encouraging new lines of thought and maybe a feeling of delight in the face of the best known parts of the natural world 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.