Are Numbers Actually Real? (A Faculty Dialogue)

Setting: Faculty common room, late morning.

A clock ticks with unnecessary authority.

Professor Quillibrace sits with a notebook, diagram half-drawn.

Mr Blottisham stands, arms folded, already dissatisfied.

Miss Elowen Stray perches on the edge of a chair, listening.

---

Blottisham (briskly):

Honestly, I don’t see the difficulty. The question is simple: are numbers actually real? Either they exist or they don’t. We can stop there.

Quillibrace (without looking up):

One could stop there, certainly. One would simply not have begun.

Blottisham:

That’s evasive. Mathematics works. You can’t deny that.

Quillibrace:

I have no intention of denying it. I am merely interested in what is working, where, and under what relations. The question you’ve asked collapses all three.

Stray (softly):

It’s the word “actually” that catches me. It feels as though the question is reaching for something beneath the practice, as if the practice were a kind of disguise.

Blottisham (impatient):

Or as if we’re just asking whether numbers are inventions or discoveries. That’s hardly exotic.

Quillibrace (turning the notebook slightly):

Notice what you’ve done there. You’ve already arranged the architecture: invention on one side, discovery on the other. Two rooms, one corridor, no windows.

Blottisham:

Because those are the options.

Quillibrace:

They are the options if numbers are the kind of thing that could be waiting to be found or merely fabricated. The question assumes its own answer space.

Stray:

So the problem isn’t whether numbers are real, but that the question treats “number” as a kind of object, rather than… something that happens?

Quillibrace (pleased, but minimally):

Something that holds, rather than something that sits.

A pattern of constraint, not an item of inventory.

Blottisham:

Constraint or not, two plus two still equals four. You can’t hand-wave that away.

Quillibrace:

I wouldn’t dream of it. But ask yourself why it cannot be otherwise.

Not because four is hovering in metaphysical space, but because once the relations are fixed, deviation is incoherent.

Stray:

So the certainty comes from the tightness of the system, not from the independence of its elements.

Quillibrace:

Precisely.

Blottisham (snorting):

That sounds like saying numbers are real “in some sense” — which is just academic fog.

Quillibrace:

On the contrary. It is saying they are real as relations, not as things.

The fog enters when we insist on asking about their “actual” reality, as though relation were a lesser mode of being.

Stray (after a pause):

Then the question fails because it asks for an answer at the wrong level. It wants an ontological verdict where a structural description is required.

Quillibrace:

Exactly. It demands a metaphysical passport for something that already functions by virtue of its internal coherence.

Blottisham:

So what — we’re not allowed to ask whether things are real anymore?

Quillibrace (dryly):

You are always allowed. You are not always entitled to an answer that respects the question as asked.

Stray (smiling faintly):

Perhaps the real issue is that “real” sounds like praise. And we’re worried numbers won’t survive without it.

Quillibrace:

Numbers survive perfectly well without our compliments.