You seriously disappoint me. I suggest you carefully re-read the post at
Within that post you will find the following statement:
I fully admit that in order to communicate I need the facilities of what you call my personal "ontology"; but, I insist "that it only be used as a vague rudder to steer one's thoughts to the discovery I have uncovered". I certainly do not insist on any accuracy in that model worth arguing about; it is no more than a communication device.
At the present, the only aspect of "mathematics" which is of interest is the fact that the field has provided an infinite set of symbols which can be used as labels. I have no concern at all with Peano's axioms. As far as I am concerned, we are still well within that category which I refer to as a vague rudder trying to steer one's thoughts.
Harv: Dick, can you define the term 'number' for me? I only ask it because we obviously have entirely different concepts of what a number is.
No Harv, I will not define the term 'number' for you! I will accept whatever definition you wish to put forward; however, when you put your definition forward, please also show me why the "numbers" so defined can not be used as labels.
Note that all I said was that, "it is possible to label all of these "things" with numbers" is a reasonable statement. You are claiming the statement itself is unreasonable without giving any reason at all except that you refuse to accept it as reasonable. I think you are trying to read something into it which is not there because you are scared to death that I might slip something by you. Believe me Harv, I am not "pulling a fast one".
Have fun -- Dick