Sorry, any references to Structural Mathematics in the mainstream deals with form and integrity, all to do with boring numbers. It is actually an engineering disciline. However, you have friends in the structural reality debate.
You'll probably find
this article interesting.
Quote:
The purpose of this paper is to develop a philosophical tool and argue that it can be used to address certain puzzles in the philosophy of logic and mathematics.
It is natural to suppose, for instance, that ‘the number of unicorns is 0’ carries commitment to the number zero. But whether or not non-philosophers take assertions of this sentence to be true depends on whether they believe that the world contains unicorns, not on whether they believe that the world contains numbers.
|
I found a continuation of the structural realism debate which concerns the epistemological question about the nature of scientific knowledge, and represents analytic philosophy of science. I don't know where you'd find the thesis but
here is a 14 page short.
There will probably never be a shortage of philosophizing on the relationship between practical science and abstractions in mathematical ways of thinking not using numbers, ie. linking reality to probability theory, after all there is no empiricism in the art of philosophy is there? But philosophy is not Einsteinian thinking, and even Einstein had problems with the ostensible versus the real, ie. in the study of fluid dynamics do you remember being wrong about the Bernoulli effect on the dynamics of flow? Never expect the expected in this reality. It's probably comfortable being mathematical without the numbers but it is decidedly impractical. It needs a new name.