Numbers don't exist, either. Not really. Any 'one' thing you can point to, it's not just one thing in reality. There's always something leaking, something fuzzy, something not accounted for in one. One universe, even? We can't be sure other universes aren't leaking into our one universe. One planet? What about all the meteorites banging into the one, so it's not one. So, numbers don't exist in the real world, any more than infinity does. Mathematics is thus proved to be nothing but a figment of the human imagination. And no, the frequency a supercooled isolated atom vibrates at in an atomic clock isn't a number either, there's always more bits to add to that number, always an error bar on the measurement, no matter how small. Numbers aren't real.
Why is it that when I have a stack of business cards, each with a picture of a different finger on my left hand, then when I arrange them in a grid, there’s only one way to do it,
but when I instead have each have a picture of either a different finger from either of my left or right hand, there is now two different arrangements of the cards in a grid?
I claim the reason is that 5 is prime, while 10 is composite (10 = 5 times 2).
You’re abstracting to connect the math: 2, 5, 10, multiplication, and primality are all abstract concepts that don’t exist.
What you’ve pointed out is that the interactions of your cards, when confined to a particular set of manipulations and placements, is equivalent to a certain abstract model.
You've already assumed 5 exists in order to assert that it's prime.
In any case existence of mathematical objects is a different meaning of existence to physical objects. We can say a mathematical object exists just by defining it, as long as it doesn't lead to contradiction.
I think your closing paragraph holds the key. 5 doesn't really exist, it's a constructor that parameterizes over something that does exist, eg. you never have "5", you have "5(something)". Saying 5 is prime is then saying that "for all x, 5(x) has the same structural properties as all other primes".
With numbers, I can give an explanation for the phenomenon I described above. If such reasoning cannot be done without reference to numbers, then, if such reasoning is correct, numbers must exist. If there is no other reasoning can be given that provides a good explanation, and as the explanation I gave for the phenomenon is compelling, then I think that a good reason to conclude that the reasoning is correct, and that therefore those particular numbers exist.
In particular, I would expect that if numbers don’t exist, the explanation I gave of the phenomenon I described, couldn’t be correct.
You could say they exist as concepts, that are necessary to use for some reasoning processes, without having any kind of independent existence.
It's similar for the case of programs or algorithms. We can say that a sorting algorithm exists, or a chess-playing program or whatever, which means we know how to implement the logical process in some physical system, but it doesn't mean that they have some kind of existence which is independent of the physical systems. It's just a way of talking about patterns that can be common to many physical systems
My view is that something exists iff there is any statement that is true of it.
I of course don’t mean that mathematical objects (such as the number 2, or some sorting algorithm) have the same kind of existence as my bed. To make the distinction, I would say that my bed “physically exists”.
That sounds like the same circularity, since you'll have to assume numbers exist before proving any statements about them.
Physical objects aren't like that because you can discover that they exist by empirical investigation.
In mathematics the discoveries are about the logical implications of sets of axioms. Some of those axioms contain assertions of existence, like a number 0 in Peano arithmetic or the empty set in set theory, and then you can prove statements about these objects based on the axioms. It's circular to infer from these conclusions that the axioms are true.
What's interesting is why certain axiom systems are so useful and fruitful. Personally I think it's because they evolved that way from our investigations of the physical world, but that's another matter
Wouldn't it follow that those "things" we're pointing to aren't really "things" because they're all leaking and fuzzy? Begging the question, what ends up on a list of things that do exist?
