I found this a frustrating read that I had every reason to enjoy more than I did. The Nirenbergs, père et fils, start with the foundations of mathematics but quickly expand that into a more generalized critique of the social-psychological construction of number and an exhortation to grasp the nettle of our existential challenge of living within that uncertainty. They contrast the rational with intuition under many names over the history of thought, beginning with ancient Greece up to the debate between Einstein and Bergson at Davos. They also end with some ruminations on Kierkegaard, Kafka, and Borges in understanding the fundamental incalculability at the heart of the human.
I found salutary the Nirenbergs' explication of the concern with sameness and difference that undergirds mathematics, and how the ghost of that concern haunts Western philosophy. Especially clear was their description of deriving number from the null set: starting with nothing and the set it includes, one builds the entire number line from logical principles. These categories of sameness and difference, and the laws of thought attempting to limn their meaning (e.g., the Law of Identity, the Principle of Noncontradiction, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, etc.), can be seen as fundamental to the Western rationalist project of parsing reality quantitatively.
I expected the Nirenbergs to build upon that insight to further illuminate modern debates over positivism etc., but they never really did that work. Instead, they're quick to write off the whole enterprise as insufficiently aware of its own mental prejudices and then to use that to leap off into a sea of existentialism. All great and good, but their posing of the dilemma is a muddled thing that lacks the sharp horns of the best accounts (here I'm thinking of books by contemporary authors like Mary-Jane Rubenstein and Meghan O'Gieblyn). It gives the sense of depth because they're citing many of my favorite writers, but their take isn't especially additive to the tradition. I suppose I should lower my expectations and just be happy with the grab-bag of quotes, references, and anecdotes (for instance, Nabokov's precognitive dreams), but mostly it felt unfocused and self-indulgent to me. Also, if I can understand all the math you're discussing, you're not going very deep. I'm functionally innumerate but I was nonetheless left wanting more of what's intimated in the title here.