  I provide a critical commentary regarding the attitude of the logician and
the philosopher towards the physicist and physics. The commentary is intended
to showcase how a general change in attitude towards making scientific
inquiries can be beneficial for science as a whole. However, such a change can
come at the cost of looking beyond the categories of the disciplines of logic,
philosophy and physics. It is through self-inquiry that such a change is
possible, along with the realization of the essence of the middle that is
otherwise excluded by choice. The logician, who generally holds a reverential
attitude towards the physicist, can then actively contribute to the betterment
of physics by improving the language through which the physicist expresses his
experience. The philosopher, who otherwise chooses to follow the advancement of
physics and gets stuck in the trap of sophistication of language, can then be
of guidance to the physicist on intellectual grounds by having the physicist's
experience himself. In course of this commentary, I provide a glimpse of how a
truthful conversion of verbal statements to physico-mathematical expressions
unravels the hitherto unrealized connection between Heisenberg uncertainty
relation and Cauchy's definition of derivative that is used in physics. The
commentary can be an essential reading if the reader is willing to look beyond
the categories of logic, philosophy and physics by being `nobody'.
