Brian:
it is not so simple. Not that some chap sat down 10,000 years ago and said
"I just invented the numbers" let's say: from 1 to 1 zillion, - the process
is a long development parallel with brain, bodily and life-style evolution.
The date - I think - refers to "numbering" amounts with a gradual path from
2 (TWO as a basic, looking at the hands, eyes and feet) and 1 as half of
this. That might have been some million years before the 10,000 mark. And I
am not so sure whether the 'atoms' are not a figment of calculative
explanation upon poorly observed phenomena. Numbered or not. Furthermore:
are numbers understood indeed? (without referring to quantity I mean). Bruno
substituted '2' by II and '4' by IIII - what is exactly the QUANTITY of
lines in the representation of a sign - otherwise meaningless; what also
shows in the Roman numerals.
('V' is a composition of 5 lines (too much individually) and X is 2 V-s (XX:
4Vs) pasted together).
The 'late' invention of the zero points exactly to such slowly developing
complex series.
As human complexity got more and more intrigued (and that in a very short
time-frame) the understanding of 'numbers' evolved in parallel, with ideas
what to do with them (math-thinking).
The abstraction "3" from e.g. "3 blind mice" is - I believe - still a
mystery, unless someone pretends to be 'smarter'.
Assumptions - presumptions and their consequences up to an n^mth level give
us - what I call - our conventional sciences. In an ongoing steady growth of
our epistemic enrichment of human cognitive inventory and its application in
technology. Math (m-logic) is a supporter of such figments, allowing
matching equations as evidence for the inclusion of the so far learned and
insufficient (incomplete) items omitting the modifying power of the still
unknown. History is full of such modifications when 'science' changed
course. And it will go on in the future as well.

John M


On 7/26/10, Brian Tenneson <tenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Does this mean that sets of numbers are inventions or just particular
> numbers are inventions?
> If the latter, then there must be a largest number which is, to me,
> counterintuitive.
>
> Numbers existed before 10,000 years ago when they were first understood by
> humans to some extent.  There was a specific number of atoms in the universe
> one day before any numbers were understood by humans, for example.
>
>
>
> John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Dear Bruno,
> on diverse lists I bounce into the 'numbers' idea - in different
> variations. I wonder if your position states that the world (whatever) has
> been 'erected' (wrong word) based on integer numbers and their additive
> multiplicity, or it can be 'explained' by such?
> It makes a big difference in my agnostic views (I dunno) because to explain
> is human logic (never mind which kind) while to erect means ontological bind
> - what I cannot condone in its entire meaning.
> Consciousness came up as being primary or not: I hope thought of in my
> version, as *"response to information*" - with *response* in ANY way and *
> information* as our acquired knowledge of relations among components of
> the totality (unlimited wholeness).
> Numbers, however, as I referred to earlier - quoting David Bohm, are *'human
> inventions'* - unidentified further. Now I got additional news from *Keith
> Devlin* (Stanford U., *"The Math Gene: "How Matheamtical Thinking Evolved*" 
> and
> *"Why Numbers Are Like Gos*sip" - plus other ~2 dozen books) who stated
> that:
>
> *"Numbers are so ubiquitous and seem so concrete, it is easy to forget
> they are *
> *a human invention and a recent one at that, dating back only 10,000
> years. *
> *Though the things we count are often in the world, the numbers we use to
> count *
> *them are figments of our imagination. For that reason we should not be
> surprised *
> *(though we usually are) to discover they are usually influenced by the
> way our *
> *brains work.< ... > When we try to attach numbers to things in the world
> , as *
> *William Poundstone describes, we find psychology gets into the mix. *
> *Numbers may be - I think they are - among the most concrete and
> precise ways *
> *to describe our world, but they are still a human creation, and as such
> they reflect *
> *us as much as the things in our environment."*
>
> ~2,500 years ago 'math' with the then recently acquired 'numbers-knowledge'
> had but a little domain to overcome and our awe for the wisdom of the old
> Greeks accepted the numbers as 'GOD". I have no problem to use numbers for
> *explaining *most of the world (the only exceptions I carried earlier were
> the 'non-quantizable' concepts - earlier, I said, because lately I condone
> in my agnosticism that there may be ways (beyond our knowledge of yesterday)
> to find quantitative characteristics in those, as well) but in our
> 'yesterday's views' I don't want to give up to find something more *general
> and underlying* upon which even the numbers can be used and applied for
> the world, of which our human mind is a part - that invented the numbers.
>
> Anoither question arose in my mind about the discussion with Rex Allen: the
> postulate that the world is Turing Emulable - as per your not too thoroughly
> detailed response to me some time ago - would refer to 'more than just the
> binary contraptions we presently use as "Turing Machines" - but - maybe - a
> *Universal Machine (Computer*) that covers all. This position would make
> the thing volatile: meaning that the world is "emulable" by some construct
> that makes it - well, emulable. (We know precious little about the
> (technical) workings of the so called  Universal Machine). In that case I
> would write the name of Turing at least in lower case as a *type*: *
> 'turing'* to eliminate the reference to the very invention of *Alan
> Turing. *
> **
> *Respectfully*
> **
> John M
> **
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to