Can you define what "Number" is, in of itself? Mind, I'm not referring simply to the symbols/numerals used to represent a number - but the concept behind the symbols.
It's sorta like politics ... it's all about what side of zero you are on.
at first I would say it is as conceptual as time,but numbers in particular seem to be code or basic code. I am talking in a quantum way of course as to the building blocks of matter to coding DNA Im pretty sure some scientist said that God speaks in code,numbers,binary ect ect but I have no idea who.
Can you define what "Number" is, in of itself?
Type of pattern, a simple one where only the count of things is denoted, not their arrangement or relationship or anything further than simple count.Can you define what "Number" is, in of itself? Mind, I'm not referring simply to the symbols/numerals used to represent a number - but the concept behind the symbols.
Huh?Type of pattern, a simple one where only the count of things is denoted, not their arrangement or relationship or anything further than simple count.
The abstraction or concept that we've invented and named "number" is a type of pattern. In fact "number" does not exist at all apart from its name, but only exists as instantiations of the concept. Wherever and however there are "4" things for example, there is an instantation of the number four, same for five and for three, and if there is currently nowhere and nohow four of anything, then four actually only exists in concept, as a certain instantiation of the type of pattern we call number.
Type of pattern, a simple one where only the count of things is denoted, not their arrangement or relationship or anything further than simple count.
The abstraction or concept that we've invented and named "number" is a type of pattern. In fact "number" does not exist at all apart from its name, but only exists as instantiations of the concept. Wherever and however there are "4" things for example, there is an instantation of the number four, same for five and for three, and if there is currently nowhere and nohow four of anything, then four actually only exists in concept, as a certain instantiation of the type of pattern we call number.
Type of pattern, a simple one where only the count of things is denoted, not their arrangement or relationship or anything further than simple count.
The abstraction or concept that we've invented and named "number" is a type of pattern. In fact "number" does not exist at all apart from its name, but only exists as instantiations of the concept. Wherever and however there are "4" things for example, there is an instantation of the number four, same for five and for three, and if there is currently nowhere and nohow four of anything, then four actually only exists in concept, as a certain instantiation of the type of pattern we call number.
Can you define what "Number" is, in of itself? Mind, I'm not referring simply to the symbols/numerals used to represent a number - but the concept behind the symbols.
Easy.
In order for us to make sense of the world we have to distinguish one thing from another.
For instance, in front of me are 2 bricks. I decide to call each of them a brick. Because I have decided that, this means that there are 2 of them.
It doesn't mean they are the same thing. One might be a big brick, another a small one. One might be a plastic brick, one might be fired brick. But the sense that I choose to make of what is there, involves me calling them the same thing. That's when I need numbers. I could decide to call them two different things. I call one of them 'Lego piece' and the other 'wall component'. I then only need the number one.
Can you define what "Number" is, in of itself? Mind, I'm not referring simply to the symbols/numerals used to represent a number - but the concept behind the symbols.
This tells me more of how one might use number - vs what number is in of itself