[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.