Well, I didn't know where to post this rather philosophical stuff, so decided to put it here. But I promise it is related to all sciences mentioned above. Here is the setting. Whenever we prove something mathematically, we always think that the proof is "eternal", often contrasted with the situation in natural sciences, where you can't really prove anything. However, nobody ever thinks (as far as I know) about the fact that we are not JUST PROVING, we prove the theorems TO SOMEBODY, namely to a homo sapiens. And the creator of a proof is also a homo sapiens. So my question is: could it be possible that a non-human mind will not be convinced by our human-to-human arguments? When we create a physical theory in mathematical terms, we first state several basic postulates. Then we use OUR logic in order to deduce the consequences, which should fit available experimental data and, if possible, try to predict something new using "the laws of nature" we just stated. If the predictions are successful, we say: "The theory seems to be plausible". Now imagine, that you've shown your basic postulates to a creature with completely different way of thinking. And It says: "NO, whatever you're considering to be a consequence of the postulates DOES NOT seem to be a consequence to me. Moreover, your theory is internally inconsistent and self-contradictory, so your theory DOES NOT predict whatever you thought it's predicting and DOES NOT fit the experimental data." Now let me stop and put clearly that I completely realize how speculative this whole argument is, if not a pure and useless fantasy. However, if one accepts the idea as being at least "worth keeping in mind", then one should also inescapably draw the following conclusion: "There is a possibility that all our physical theories are convincing only for a human being, and make no sense whatsoever for a non-human mind. So it is not impossible that physicists are just a crowd of hairless monkeys, telling each other beautiful fairy tales about the way nature "works". It may be possible, also, that the fact that theories make successful predictions means NOTHING, since the conclusions may work only for us. It is also possible that there can be endless different types of mathematics, depending on the internal structure of a brain of a creature which conceived it. And this means that mathematical proves possess a property which I will call a "biological relativity', i.e. they make sense only for animals of the same basic "scheme of the brain", so to speak. And that's exactly why mathematical proofs seem so ideal to us - we simply CAN NOT find counter-arguments, due to BIOLOGICAL constraints. The constraints may work in the following manner: the writer accompanies the whole process of creating the theorem and the proof by constant checking of the proof for internal contradictions, and then a brain of essentially THE SAME type (i.e. the brain of the reader) tries to find the contradiction and, obviously, fails. But if it was somebody with a different brain... " etc, etc. So, overall that's the idea that bothers me already for a very long time. I will appreciate very much if somebody shows me a flaw in my arguments or/and gives me a link, which demonstrates that it is an old and well analyzed philosophical problem and I can simply read about it instead of contemplating and tormenting myself day and night. Thanks a lot for reading this philosophical c...p. But it really bothers me. P.S. I am not a native speaker, so I apologize for mistakes.