Philosophy Now Forum

For me the meaning of numbers does not exiat in isolation, rather that numbers derive meaning in relationship to one another. For example the idea of oneness needs something to compare with. Say the only thing in the universe is one observer. Now unless this observer has something to compare with, then he/she won't understand the idea of oneness (no matter how bright this observer is). If other objects existed (e.g. one tree or one rock), then maybe this individual would understand the idea of oneness. And if more objects existed (e.g. another individual or two trees or rocks), then our observer may understand the meaning of oneness, twoness and quantity.

I had introduced the idea of anagram numbers (e.g. 213 and 231) with digits in different order. An anagram number can't be understood in isolation. You must have at least two to compare to help understanding. Therefore it really isn't proper to speak of an anagram number, but anagram numbers.

Perhaps you have thoughts that may expound on what the full meaning of numbers is.

PhilX

Phil, you do know that some blind people can understand perspective, and actually draw it, yes? So how can you be certain that a single isolated being couldn't understand a concept, such as 'oneness'?

Dalek Prime wrote:Phil, you do know that some blind people can understand perspective, and actually draw it, yes? So how can you be certain that a single isolated being couldn't understand a concept, such as 'oneness'?

How does this translate into an abstract concept such as number?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Phil, you do know that some blind people can understand perspective, and actually draw it, yes? So how can you be certain that a single isolated being couldn't understand a concept, such as 'oneness'?

How does this translate into an abstract concept such as number?

PhilX

How does an abstract concept such as perspective translate to another abstract concept, such as a number? They are both abstractions that may be perceived, even if we don't expect the perceiver to understand it. Read again what you said about a solitary person not being able to understand an abstraction, and compare that to what has happened with blind persons.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Perhaps you have thoughts that may expound on what the full meaning of numbers is

Numbers are abstract placeholders for specific quantities. So they do not exist in any real sense but reference physical reality
They exist up on number lines and the horizontal is the most common one. Which has zero in the exact middle as the only non
positive / non negative integer and extends to negative infinity on the left and positive infinity on the right. No two rational or
irrational numbers can be beside each other for the quantity which can exist between them is infinite. This is because numbers
can have an infinite number of places although not all actually do. The vertical number line also exists. This is where imaginary
numbers reside. This is a somewhat inaccurate definition since all numbers are imaginary. The most famous imaginary number is
the square root of minus one. It makes no logical sense for a negative to have a square and is very counter intuitive. Yet it is true

Surreptitious said:

"No two rational or
irrational numbers can be beside each other for the quantity which can exist between them is infinite." It's more accurate to say no two rational/irrational numbers can be next to each other rather than beside each other.

Also where you point out that imaginary numbers reside on the vertical line is true for an Argand diagram, but not for a Cartesian diagram which is normally studied in high school.

I hope this clarifies for the reader.

PhilX