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

[Damien Broderick]

At 07:17 AM 9/26/2008 -0700, Jef wrote:

> > How much of the universe would have to go in order to eliminate 17?
> > For example, would there be a 17 if there were only 16 electrons and
> > nothing else? One electron? Empty space?
>
>...The question presumes the ontological status of "17."  A valid
>question would be one that can be modeled as a system providing a
>defined output.  Otherwise, what can it ***mean***?

I'm inclined to think that "17" is the name of an operation, not of a 
thing. That interpretation might map onto Jef's and, I suspect, 
Lee's. This view has implications for incalculably large numbers and 
infinities, no doubt, but only if they really are incalculable. (But 
I am not a mathematician.)

Damien Broderick