(September 14, 2017 at 9:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(September 14, 2017 at 6:36 pm)Whateverist Wrote: But those real objects for which our mathematics map so well are not mathematical objects. The symbol is not the object.
No one is saying that the symbols are objects. Only that there is an essential relationship between mathematical symbols and what those symbols signify.
But numbers aren't about "what", they're about "how many" or at least "how much". That is pretty independent of what they may be.
(September 14, 2017 at 9:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(September 14, 2017 at 6:36 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Better answer: this goes back to all the other 'fortuitous' results of evolution. The poor mappers have bit the dust. We are the winner's inheritors.
You say that as if there wasn't a reason why some mapping strategies are better than others. What is the difference between a good map and a bad one if not the degree to which it corresponds to real features and objects in reality?
But what difference would that make if we weren't being selected for our mapping abilities? Those who continually get lost aren't going to make it.
Numbers don't directly map to the real world, it is always an amount or quantity of something. That is pretty general, just like our mathematics. That's actually an important part of why it is so useful.
I'm not really feeling what it is which is animating your objection here. Can you break it down for me?