>>10831852Numbers are abstracts, not literals.
They absolutely do NOT exist in the way a rock or a tree does. That isn't to say they're "made up" either though. As an abstract object, there's a very real predicate they abstract from. More specifically, numbers are abstractions of repetition.
By recognizing multiple instances of a class of object as sharing in that class we can make some very useful shortcuts by dealing with the resulting quality of repetition that follows from recognition of sameness e.g. We recognize the class "fingers" and notice there are 5 instances of this class on our right hand, or the class "weekdays" and notice there are 5 instances of those per week, or the class "dollars" and notice a sandwich costs 5 of those, etc. And we get to abstract out that notion of "5" to work with as though it were an object on its own.
In mundane physical reality there are only objects like fingers, or durations of time, or pieces of green paper representing "dollars," but in the abstract we use a pseudo-something like "5" and get useful results out of exploiting how nature is lazy and behaves the same way with all these different real world instances of 5 repetitions of something. No matter which kind of situation it is, if there's "5" of something in it and you're losing "2 of those things in it, then you know you're always looking at "3" of those things remaining.
