[ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

[Jef Allbright]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 12:40 PM 9/27/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:
>
>> > nature of ***meaning***.   What possible meaning is there to X if X
>> > isn't defined in terms of any observable interaction?
>>
>> Is this position equivalent to positivism?
>
> Suppose one said instead "any conceivable interaction"? (This is thorny
> territory, but I suppose superstrings and brane bulks etc are not
> observable, but we account for what *is* observable by specifying certain
> interactions that calculation draws out as likely, or, better yet,
> impossible, from those postulated primitives.)

Yes, "conceivable" as in conceivably observable, might have been more
palatable without detracting from my intended point.

- Jef