It is interesting to interpret the body of mathematics as you would a collection of fictional tales. However, the philosophy begins to unravel (to me) when it asserts that &quot;8 is larger than 5&quot; is false while &quot;Sydney is larger than San Francisco&quot; is true because the latter statement &quot;has referents&quot;.<p>What is it that makes Sydney and San Francisco real objects with meaningful sizes while 8 and 5 are not real and do not have meaningful sizes? Sydney and San Francisco are defined by political and legal &quot;stories&quot; in the same way that 8 and 5 are defined in mathematical &quot;stories&quot;. The theory only seems to be consistent if all out-of-context falsifiable statements are taken to be false.<p>This theory placates me, since it leaves the truth value of mathematical statements (in the context of the mathematical story) to mathematicians. However, it renders any conclusions meaningless to mathematics, even if it is meaningful for a philosophy dealing with human stories.