>But physics did so precisely by deliberately confining its attention to those aspects of nature susceptible of an exact mathematical treatment.
What aspects aren't?
What aspects aren't?
Arguably god is not an "aspect of nature", but in this case, how do you define an aspect of nature? Something susceptible of an exact mathematical treatment? That's circular reasoning.
If you are an atheist, god may not be in your nature, but it is impossible not to believe in some unfalsifiable idea. I mean, I assume that I am not a Boltzmann brain and that you exist and that you are a human just like me, not just a NPC in a simulation. This is not mathematically quantifiable, but it is essential to make sense of the world.
And there is Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
I guess, to count it as counter-example it would be necessary to have evidence that it is an aspect of reality and to have evidence that it can not be modelled. If I did not miss something, we do not have a solid definition for consciousness. I agree, that there could be definitions of consciousness which evade mathematical modelling, but then we have to still show that this specific definition is realised in nature, correct?