Like Spinoza, Nietzsche thinks about something for a bit and decides whatever conclusion he came to must have been the correct one. Learn something before you open your mouth, fool.
Yes, it’s ultimately futile to try to make a comprehensive comparison of things. Ultimately nothing is the same. But you know what? We don’t need to be so picky. Or rigid. Even though every rock is unique, they’re all comparable in some ways, like for example, they all fall under the category of “rock”. So I can put them in an equivalence class for the time being—without robbing them of their unique individuality, just saying they are comparable without being identical.
I feel like I’m stating the obvious. And this person is a venerated Western intellectual? Give me a break.
If by the “laws of numbers” he means to undermine mathematics, then Nietzsche’s critique falls short of most interesting mathematical stuff.
Yes, not all rocks are the same. But. We can still make equivalence-classes of rocks—treating them as the same for the time being.
And even if you couldn’t—that wouldn’t change the weirdness that happens when you mix two things like plus and times
(you get prime numbers which show up at not-totally-predictable times)
…or what happens when you combine shifts and swaps:
Nobody is “making this up”. Nor does it depend upon some person’s viewpoint. You can work out the symmetric group of order 3 and you’ll find the same thing I found when I worked it out.
Remember that this is the same bloke who posited in The Eternal Return that states-of-affairs must recur given an infinite amount of time. Which is wrong: dynamical systems can wander off and never come back, like a random walker in 3D.