>>6606025>We will always have different symbols to represent the same information, but from context we all know we're talking about the same thing.So you agree whatever this thing is it transcends all symbolic representations of it?
>Mathematics is how life sees the universe. The foundation of counting is the aggregation of data. Summarizing all the information in all the molecules in a pen, all the features and function of a pen, as a single abstraction - an object - a pen.Mathematics isn't a kind of pragmatic abstraction like a pen is. There are a number of problems with this kind of nominalist view -
1. that new discoveries in mathematics retroactively apply
2. that mathematics develops in ways we don't anticipate
An example of a new discovery we can easily imagine would be prime numbers. We knew about 3 before we knew 3 was prime. Yet it would be illogical to suggest 3 wasn't a prime number before we discovered that was true, this suggests the qualities of "threeness" exist outside human consciousness.
