> "mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess."
I take the brevity and lack of commitment to a position in your reply as an indication that you're not really willing or able to defend your position. That's fine, it's a complex topic, as the many articles on the SEP linked above attest. But if you want to claim "the world is made of math", then the onus is on you to define what you mean by that. To me, it looks a little incoherent.
Take the brevity as a lack of hubris. The notion that “the world is made of math” is one of the oldest and most influential ideas of all time. If you find Pythagoras, Plato and Newton a little incoherent, that’s not unusual. But the onus doesn’t lie with them (or me). In any case, I remain interested in your ideas!
None of Pythagoras, Plato, or Newton claimed that the “world is made of math”. Also, Aristotle’s philosophy of mathematics is considered an alternative to Plato’s, so trying to seek solace in both at the same time seems inconsistent.
Plato described math as a realm distinct from both the physical world and the world of consciousness. This doesn’t support the idea the “the world is made of math”.
Newton described the world as operating in accordance with the rules of math, but that’s not the same as being “made of math.” Plato’s view is compatible with this: what Frege described as the “third realm”, the realm of abstract objects, can have a relationship with the physical realm without requiring that the latter be “made of” the former.
Aristotle explicitly distinguished between physics and mathematics, saying in his Metaphysics that physics is concerned with things that change, whereas mathematics encompasses things that are eternal, do not change, and are not substances. So Aristotle seems to explicitly reject your view.
As such, I don’t accept your claim that your position is “one of the oldest and most influential ideas of all time.”
> But the onus doesn’t lie with them (or me).
If you make a claim, the onus certainly lies on you to support that claim.
Pythagoras said “all is number.” So, where some claimed that “fire” was the primary constituent of all things and others “earth,” Pythagoreanism held that numbers were the underlying principle. Do you accept this claim?
Newton was a Pythagorean. He even attributed the inverse square law to Pythagoras.
Plato is always hard to pin down, but he describes the immaterial world as crafted by number, prior to the material world.
