I suppose there's two ways (at least) to look at it.
In the first, numbers are a conceptual model depicting an attribute or pattern related to quantity. They're imaginary. They are not physically real in and of themselves (beyond their status as concepts in peoples' heads and on paper), but the model can correspond to something in reality even if the model is itself just a model. But it doesn't have to. Imagine a really large number... say, a googol raised to the power of a googol, which I'll call a fifi because why the hell not. A fifi might NOT have any real-world equivalent. It might be more than the number of quarks or planck lengths that exist in the entire universe. The number fifi would still exist, now that I've defined the concept. But the pattern of quantity it depicts would not exist.
In the second, numbers are directly the patterns of quantity, and not just a model of the pattern of quantity. Two feet, two wheels, two turtledoves, two everything, all of these share the quality of two-ness in the same empirical, objective way that certain frequencies of light have the quality of green-ness and certain chemicals have the quality of sweet-ness. Here, numbers exist when some measure of some real object or objects displays them. A number like the fifi quite possibly would not exist.
The debate over which of these two views is correct would, I'm pretty sure, be semantic.
tl;dr: Numbers are imaginary and also real. It's complex.
In the first, numbers are a conceptual model depicting an attribute or pattern related to quantity. They're imaginary. They are not physically real in and of themselves (beyond their status as concepts in peoples' heads and on paper), but the model can correspond to something in reality even if the model is itself just a model. But it doesn't have to. Imagine a really large number... say, a googol raised to the power of a googol, which I'll call a fifi because why the hell not. A fifi might NOT have any real-world equivalent. It might be more than the number of quarks or planck lengths that exist in the entire universe. The number fifi would still exist, now that I've defined the concept. But the pattern of quantity it depicts would not exist.
In the second, numbers are directly the patterns of quantity, and not just a model of the pattern of quantity. Two feet, two wheels, two turtledoves, two everything, all of these share the quality of two-ness in the same empirical, objective way that certain frequencies of light have the quality of green-ness and certain chemicals have the quality of sweet-ness. Here, numbers exist when some measure of some real object or objects displays them. A number like the fifi quite possibly would not exist.
The debate over which of these two views is correct would, I'm pretty sure, be semantic.
tl;dr: Numbers are imaginary and also real. It's complex.
Being an antipistevist is like being an antipastovist, only with epistemic responsibility instead of bruschetta.
Ignore list includes: 1 douche bag (Drich)
Ignore list includes: 1 douche bag (Drich)
