**Nope.**

That was the short version of this blog entry addressed to the impatient readers. But the more patient readers may continue. ;-)

**Motto:** A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. – *A former South German colleague of mine*

In a comment, James G. summarized the ultimate driving force that makes so many people reject string theory, quantum field theory, quantum mechanics, or modern physics in general:

I undestand your defence of the depths of the mathematical techniques required for full assimilation of the modern theoretical physics papers – but I for one believe it is not really required i.e. Nature is not so [copulating] difficult.

Yes, the ultimate driver is math phobia. But as a wise web page explains,

math doesn't suck: you do.

**Allowing maths to play a role**
The people who don't understand that the world is fundamentally controlled by maths are a mystery for me, in the same sense as

women are mystery for Stephen Hawking. After all, this is not just an analogy, it could be a nearly equivalent statement because most people who deny that maths fundamentally governs the reality

*are* women.

(Hawking has

reiterated that the humans have to colonize Mars and outer space to escape from the looming nuclear Armageddon: yes, he echoed

Fidel Castro. Because Hawking's IQ tops that of the climate alarmists by 40 points or so,

BBC published a criticism of Hawking's summary for policymakers.)

I have taken the key role of maths in the world for granted from the first moment I began to think – which is really why the math deniers look like a different biological species to me. When I was 3 and learned how to write and read, finding the right theory matching the perceptions became a priority. The first framework I had when I was 4 or so was based on matter filling a three-dimensional Euclidean space. Using a modern terminology, it was a classical theory whose configuration space was made out of the maps

\[ f:\RR^3 \to \{0,1\} \] In other words, at each point of the world, there either "is" something, or there is nothing. I bet that for many of you, this was the template of the first theory you believed to match the natural phenomena around you. I was convinced that it had to be true, that properties of the materials are encoded in some microscopic patterns and shapes of the regions where the map is equal to one (regions with boundaries that I implicitly assumed to be infinitely smooth), and the only remaining task was to find out how the map \(f\) evolves in time.