[37074177throw]

> As a computer scientist, I don’t find it ridiculous: everything on a computer is encoded as a bit string. Let’s pursue the analogy: if we have a directory full of devotional icons in some image format, and another directory full of hardcore porn clips in some video format, it’s certainly conceivable that the exact same bit string could appear in both directories.

I found this to be careless thinking, conflating representation of thing with the thing itself.

[Warwolt]

Was that not precisely the authors point? We don't feel queasy representing many things different things incidientally with the same binary sequence, so why feel queasy about the same set theoretical representation?

I understood it as the author emphasizing as I believe you also wish the difference between the representation and the thing itself. Sets can be fun and useful without us resorting to reductionistic arguments about what math "is", I believe the author is saying.