not try other ’’words”. They did - in fact they tried very hard indeed. But
they always failed and were forced to accept the above group.
Another proof that indeed mathematics is the correct language of nature
is the following. It also turns out that often a particular ’word’ in mathe-
matics is used for more than one physical situations. For example the group
SU(2) as a mathematical language can describe the so called ’spin’ degree
of freedom and other independent ’isospin’ or ,nusospin, degrees of freedom
in physics ( Abbas(2005) ). Words∕sounds do have independent existence.
We give them a particular meaning by association. We match∕map them to
whatever physical object/concept we wish. For example I may call a nectar
’honey’ and use the same word for my wife. As far as I am concerned the
same word ’honey’ is accurately describing∕mapping the reality of nectar as
well as my wife. Thus in the mathematical description of nature the group
SU(2) can stand as the ’’word’ for different physical entities like spin, isospin
and nusospin. Also as we described a little earlier the group SU (3) stood
for quarks in the quark model as well as for another independent framework
of describing the strong interaction as the gauge force built up around this
group - the so called Quantum Chromodynamics. This is a further proof
that mathematics correctly read (the SU(2) or SU(3) groups here ) is indeed
the language of nature.
Well, good enough. However, this must be true for all that part of math-
ematics which can be labelled as ’’applied”. But this constitutes only a small
part of the whole mathematical edifice that exists today. What about the
huge amount of ’’pure” mathematics. On the basis of what has been stated
so far, ’’pure” mathematics should therefore be understood so as to belong
to the honourable category of ’’gibberish”. No offense meant, but as far
as the language of nature is concerned, if the relevant applied mathematics
is the exact and accurate vocabulary of nature, then necessarily the ’pure’
mathematics must be treated as ’gibberish’ in the framework of what one
understands as a ’’language”.
Just as a child can produce a large number of gibberish sounds in ordi-
nary language so can a mathematician produce a huge amount of ’gibberish’
mathematics. Just as the structure of the physical reality allows us to pro-
duce a large amount of gibberish sounds so also the mathematical reality of
nature seems to be structured in a manner that it allows us to conceive of
a huge amount of mathematical ’’gibberish”. But the history of science is
full of instances of mathematics which was considered as ’pure”, as what the