This question gets a lot more practical if we abstract math as being similar to language in this regard (namely, as a way to describe the world around us and communicate effectively). The question then becomes: is language real? Asking whether math is real just becomes a subset of that question.
One way the article tries to prove that math is 'real' is through extrapolating its effects; without it, we wouldn't have our modern phones, tools, etc., and so math, by virtue of being _useful_, is part of an underlying reality. When it could just be that it is just a useful way of describing and communicating an underlying reality.
This question gets a lot more practical if we abstract math as being similar to language in this regard (namely, as a way to describe the world around us and communicate effectively). The question then becomes: is language real? Asking whether math is real just becomes a subset of that question.
One way the article tries to prove that math is 'real' is through extrapolating its effects; without it, we wouldn't have our modern phones, tools, etc., and so math, by virtue of being _useful_, is part of an underlying reality. When it could just be that it is just a useful way of describing and communicating an underlying reality.