In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 19 Apr., 09:34, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <6f2faae2-dada-47a3-b172-aff3ad776...@y2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > So, mathematics has become theological because > > > > it treats real numbers as individuals although > > > > they cannot be named > > > > > Since numbers do not exists, in mathematics, i.e., in discourse, other > > > than as names > > > > Nonsense! > > If numbers existed only as names then different names would necessarily > > represent different numbers, > > No. Look, the unicorn does not exist other than as its name. But there > are different written names and many different pictures describing it.
Wrong, as usual! The word "unicorn" is not the thing itself but only a way of referring to or pointing to something else. If the name were the thing named then the word "unicorn" would have to have a horn, which it does not. > > > but a great deal of both arithmetic and > > algebra is aimed at showing how different names can represent the same > > number. Equations often do no more than that. > > Of course. There are many names for the number one, eins, unity, 1, I. > But numbers that have no names and no representations do not exist > such that they could exert any action upon us or that we could exert > any action upon them.
To say that things than have no names cannot have any effect, as WM is doing, is to ignore that we are always discovering new, previously unnamed, things, which, though unnamed, have always existed.
Or does WM believe that each such discovery of something new changes the underlying reality as well as merely changing our perception of it? --