Dear Prof. Dr. Brian D. Josephson,

This is a follow up to what I have been complaining about the way

theoretical physicists use mathematics. BTW, to be very honest, I have no

quarrel with engineers and applied physicists most of whom agree with my

complaint and they go even further saying that theoretical physics is a

religion. When I told them about the contribution of scholastic philosophy

to the development of mathematical logic and information science, they

understood.

So, where does theoretical physics or mathematical physics stands? This is

a serious question.

As I discussed with Dr. Belher, I have a serious problem with the way

physicists use mathematics. For them, mathematics is a "language", a

bunch of formulas to be picked up and used in whatever convenient way

possible. In mathematics, mathematical formulas are developed in theories

and they are not independent. Each mathematical formulas have its own

context and ignoring the context quickly leads to inconsistency.

Going back to…

This is a follow up to what I have been complaining about the way

theoretical physicists use mathematics. BTW, to be very honest, I have no

quarrel with engineers and applied physicists most of whom agree with my

complaint and they go even further saying that theoretical physics is a

religion. When I told them about the contribution of scholastic philosophy

to the development of mathematical logic and information science, they

understood.

So, where does theoretical physics or mathematical physics stands? This is

a serious question.

As I discussed with Dr. Belher, I have a serious problem with the way

physicists use mathematics. For them, mathematics is a "language", a

bunch of formulas to be picked up and used in whatever convenient way

possible. In mathematics, mathematical formulas are developed in theories

and they are not independent. Each mathematical formulas have its own

context and ignoring the context quickly leads to inconsistency.

Going back to…