It could be! People don’t use the same model of the world all the time. E.g. when talking about my living room I might treat a “chair” as a basic object, even though I could also talk about the atoms making up the chair if prompted to think differently.
When talking about math, people readily reason using ontologies where mathematical objects are the basic building blocks. E.g. “four is next to five.” But if talking about tables and chairs, statements like “this chair has four legs” don’t need to use “four” as part of the ontology, the “four-ness” is just describing a pattern in the actual ontologically basic stuff (chair-legs).
It could be! People don’t use the same model of the world all the time. E.g. when talking about my living room I might treat a “chair” as a basic object, even though I could also talk about the atoms making up the chair if prompted to think differently.
When talking about math, people readily reason using ontologies where mathematical objects are the basic building blocks. E.g. “four is next to five.” But if talking about tables and chairs, statements like “this chair has four legs” don’t need to use “four” as part of the ontology, the “four-ness” is just describing a pattern in the actual ontologically basic stuff (chair-legs).