(1975) ), ” it is an ’’empirical - historical fact” that theories in physics can
be represented as mathematical structures ”. Similar view is also expressed
by Omnes ( Omnes (2005) ), ” When a physical theory .. requires mathe-
matics in the formalized corpus .. one can make the axioms necessary for the
theory explicit, at least in principle, and follow the unfolding of ideas from
these axioms into the mathematical corpus.”
As per this view, mathematics forms a basic and fundamental structure
and physics arises as a later structure which tries to gain legitimacy by em-
bedding itself in this already preexisting structure. But this model leads to
several Interpretational problems. This is necessarily artificial in content as
clearly this model is completely at variance with what has been presented by
us above. As per what we are saying here, in fact it is actually physics which
maps the primitive and basic reality of nature and in as much as mathematics
is the language of nature, it continues to ’read’ this book of nature. There is
no question of embedding here.
Many persons ( Russell (1931), Jeans (1930), Alan and Peat (1988), Red-
head (1972), Shapiro (1977), French (1999), Omnes (2005) ), including this
author, have talked of mathematics as being the language of science or na-
ture. If this is so, then the ability to handle mathematics should be linked
to the ability to handle ordinary language grammar. However in a recent
study Rosemary Varley et al (2005) studied three men with brain damage
which affected their ability to handle grammar. However Varley et al found
that these men retained full ability to do computations including recursion.
They could even deal with structure - dependent concepts such as mathe-
matical expressions with brackets etc. This clearly shows that the ability
to handle the language of mathematics is entirely independent of one’s abil-
ity to handle ordinary language. Thus though both ( human languages say
English/Hindi/Urdu and mathematics ) are languages, these are essentially
different in as much as they register differently in human brain. This differ-
ence should be basic rather than accidental.
Hence scientists, when making up theories have to find judicious combi-
nations of these disparate aspects of the two languages to communicate with
each other. So no wonder experts in one or the other of these two ’languages’
miss appreciation of the total reality. Clearly this supports our contention
here, as that of mathematics being the ’exact’ language of nature.
As we have shown above, there are actually two independent ’’languages”.
Firstly the everyday language ( like English, Hindi and Urdu ) and secondly
10