It does not follow that interactions of subatomic particles are actually feynman diagrams.
Right, there you can say "ceci n'est pas une pipe" and be right. The problem with this is that software is, literally, information. And all types of information are equivalent. It's true that information requires a carrier (language, memory, hardware, whatever), but that doesn't mean it should be conflated with it. With math, numbers are no different than any other form of precise information.
"We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding that we must learn a great deal more about 'and.'" — Sir Arthur Eddington
Comments
Right, there you can say "ceci n'est pas une pipe" and be right. The problem with this is that software is, literally, information. And all types of information are equivalent. It's true that information requires a carrier (language, memory, hardware, whatever), but that doesn't mean it should be conflated with it. With math, numbers are no different than any other form of precise information.
Then, when someone tries to tell us that math isn't just numbers, were going to have to introduce them to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_numbering
But wait, software is just numbers too, right? Right, which is why people can make this: http://us.metamath.org/
P.S. While you're over there, don't miss the 2+2=4 trivia: http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia
"We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding that we must learn a great deal more about 'and.'" — Sir Arthur Eddington