Paz & Gorm & Oliver & some other friends are all perplexed about mathematics. They think it is huge, and so important that all philosophy should just conform itself to Maths. The problem is, while they know that any data or knowledge can at best be an approximation and a simplification and a relative truth, they mysteriously miss the relativeness of Maths. And it is a shame, too, that they are perplexed, because Maths is such a simple, solved issue.
In part, their perplexity comes from one counter-intuitive property of the usefulness of Maths.
Curiously, Mathematics is very effective because it is so extremely mind-boggling useless.
Thus with Natural Numbers you have infinite options, of which you can use an arbitrarily large amount, and still most of the numbers never actually get used, for any slice of infinity is a thin slice. Then Rational Numbers add add infinity times infinity new options, and this probably enhances the usefulness of Maths by something like one hundred. Then Real Numbers grow by infinity to the power of 3, and the added functionality should be something like 10,000 or some shit. Obviously the same reasoning goes for other mathematical concepts, like operations or functions or whatever.
The uses of numbers explode, but only in a smaller proportion to the amount of uselessness. This amount is so bizarrely bigger that we don’t even think about it (though pedagogues should).
Amongst so many useless options, we have a reasonable chance of finding one that somehow fits to any given problem.
But, at the core, a number is just a useless mind trick: A mnemonic for an act of counting, which has as much truth in it as jumping or singing a nursery rhyme. It is just an action, just a form of behaviour.