By this logic, a chair does not exist; only it’s micro-constituents do (atoms etc.) I think we have to recognize that entities (whether they are numbers or actual things) are separate from how we describe them. So the concept of the number four exists and we can describe it as 2+2 or 4. The entity of a chair exists and we can describe it as a chair or in terms of atoms. Language and numbers are not the actual stuff we are discussing.
As much as I appreciate your thoughts on SIA, posts like these are the real reason I don't need dollar bills to have fun tonight.
By this logic, a chair does not exist; only it’s micro-constituents do (atoms etc.) I think we have to recognize that entities (whether they are numbers or actual things) are separate from how we describe them. So the concept of the number four exists and we can describe it as 2+2 or 4. The entity of a chair exists and we can describe it as a chair or in terms of atoms. Language and numbers are not the actual stuff we are discussing.
> So my view is that 1—exists. 2—exists. 3—exists. 4, however, doesn’t exist, nor does 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, or any other composite number.
I don't know, you say that a whole infinity of prime numbers exists. But infinity is not a prime number. Seems like a contradiction.
I think we can do with only 0 and 9. That would be only 0.(9)+0.(9) numbers which we can perfectly expressed through 0 and 9.