Introduction to Euclid by Rav Baruch of Shkolev a disciple of the Gra: there is a mizvah in learning Mathematics and Physics [all the seven wisdoms.]

I believe there is a mizvah in learning Mathematics and Physics. [ AS we can see in the Introduction to Euclid by Rav Baruch of Shkolev a disciple of the Gra.] Even though I recognize that not all rishonim [mediaeval authorities] agree with this. The most notable is the Ramban [Nachmanides] who in answer to the debate about the legitimacy of the Rambam wrote a very emotional pleas to the sages in France to defend the Rambam. But in all that powerful deep felt letter there is not a word claiming the Rambam was right. [As David Bronson pointed out to me.] Just for some background there were three debates about the Rambam. The first was because of his comments on Pirkei Avot chapter 4 on the mishna about not using Torah to make money. The second debate came because of the Guide for the Perplexed. [What was that all about? Well a lot of things. But probably the major issue was the positive approach to Aristotle.] The next one came up during the Renaissance. I would in fact have preferred to sit and learn Gemara, but for reasons that are unclear to me today, I eventually found that impossible (I was thrown out of very yeshiva I walked into and just sat down and tried to learn. But I was no longer socially acceptable because I was divorced, and no longer had rich parents. But when I was young, the red carpet was laid out before me.), and because of circumstances, I found myself needing to go to the Polytechnic Institute of N.Y.U. to major in Physics. So, I depend on the opinions of the Gra, Ibn Pakuda [the author of the Chovot Levavot] and Rambam. I should add here that I am really not sure about what the Ramban [Nahmanides] holds exactly. All that is clear is that he was against Aristotle. But as far as the natural sciences go, I do not know. [And I am wondering if perhaps this makes the most sense--to hold by the natural sciences, but to reject philosophy. Maybe that is what the Ramban [Nahmanides] is getting at? For after all he was a doctor who had certainly learned what the universities were requiring to come a doctor. But openly rejected Aristotle. And In fact, Rav Nahman [Breslov] also had said not to learn philosophy. (Sandra Lehman once told me that there is something about philosophy which detracts from common sense.) Yet I have seen that a little bit of philosophy can be highly beneficial--but not too much.]