Then does this mean that the very basis of quantification is a fiction? Were that true, then how/why could we ever depend on it to give us useful, reliable measurements?
No, it simply means that it is not within the scope of things that have observable and empirically measureable properties. That was the context in which the statement was made.
[[Mathematics is an abstraction. It is used to represent properties of real objects and forces, but it is not “real” in and of itself.]]
it’s an argument from nihilism- the truth doesn’t exist, and nothing is objective- only subjective reality exists- universal moral values don’t exist either, but apparently, subjective moral values imposed by nihilists are far superior to universal truths and moral values- Universal moralists in hteir minds are nothign but oppressive ignorants who wish to oppose stifeling objectivism on everyone, who apparently could get along just fine in their own subjectively moral world. We’re told that subjective reality and moralism is more ‘compassionate’ because it allows peopel to ‘be free’ while objective moralism apparently hangs a yolk aroudn hte necks of poor souls just trying to help out their fellow man by giving everyone as much ‘freedom’ and’protection’ as possible- but in reality, subjective moralism imposes far more restriction, and far less protections than it proposes to delve out. Nihilists don’t truly mean that ‘nothing is real or objective’, what htey mean is that they think hteir subjective moral values are superior, and that objective moralists shoudl hterefore adopt their views, or pay the consequences. Their reality is subconsciously tightly defined by their own self imposed set of rules, but consciously denied as havign any basis in reality. They aren’t truly subjctive- for if they were- total anarchy and apathy towarsd other’s feelings woudl ensue, and htey know this
Not saying tacticlogic is a nihilist- but the argument comes from a form of nihilism