I was reading some comments about mathematics as being “an art”. Well, physics is an art in some sense too. The art comes from the various ways of thinking that one can approach in order to describe reality. There is this choice that is not at all obvious but is essential in doing anything relevant. If there is something that interests me most then it is this: How should we think about reality? Are there some new rules we have to discover? Do we have the chance of discovering them? I am not interested in this or that approximation that allows one to compute something faster or more accurate. I am interested in the connection between reality and our way of thinking. I see the underlying ways of thinking that stay behind various theories and this makes me see that in fact there are very few ways of thinking from where most of the ideas emerge. For example I can see that string theory and QLG are based essentially on the same way of thinking. Remember when I discussed about the two ideas: perturbative approaches and lattice approaches and that both are based on the same way of thinking, namely, how to represent reality in terms of something “small enough” but not “infinitely small”… Both ideas come from a mix between geometry and perturbative approaches. If brought to the limit they should produce the same thing… some sort of “QLG-ST” diabolic mix. It is funny though that string theorists have managed to make these two ideas look like “opposing”… they differ in the way we choose to look at them but they are not that different from the perspective of the ways of thinking.