Thread: What was the first number?

Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom

Can you guys shut up about pi now? It's the circumference of a random circle divided by the diameter of that circle. (all in this space-timecontinuum) There. This thread was about first numbers!

One upto five, probably, and from that most other numbers were made. By the way, the babyloniërs used 60 number symbols, instead of the 10 we use now

Woes, do we have an internet tough guy in here? I think you need to read the thread.

Originally Posted by Xei

Where would one find a circle, in the universe? Circles are just approximations. In fact the whole of geometry is an approximation of reality, because Euclid's parallel axiom (that two parallel lines never meet) is actually wrong in our reality.

...

The idea that numbers are 'in space' demands an explanation, too. What exactly do you mean by that? By what distances are these numbers separated?

I said perfect circles are in space, though they do not exist in the form of matter. Use your imagination to outline one. You will be a bit off, but you will be able to capture the fact that it is there, just not in material form. I did not say numbers exist in space. Numbers are metaphysical, not material.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Woes, do we have an internet tough guy in here? I think you need to read the thread.

That was my way of saying that you guys got off-topic. I read the thread, but two-third of it isn't relevant for the subject. So start another topic if you want to talk about pi and I don't know whatnot. Just don't do it here.

I'm not getting in any discussions about this with you or anyone else.

A symbol is very much similar to a name (or are they the same?).

If you want to know if the given quantity exists independently of any human-conceived name for it, consider the existence of a rock if you did not know that it was called a rock, or if there was no word in the universe for a "rock". But imagine that it's right there, in front of you, the way it looks and smells and sounds when you scratch your nail on it. The way it feels. The way it tastes! It exists, right? Now, if there are "5" rocks in front of you, but you have no concept of what five of anything is, would the rocks appear to exist any differently upon the creation of the concept of numbers?

Am I on the right track with this, or did I miss the point entirely?

Originally Posted by invader_tech

A symbol is very much similar to a name (or are they the same?).

A name is a symbol, but a symbol and what it represents are not the same, except in the case of symbols like the word symbol.

Thing:



symbol: car

Originally Posted by invader_tech

If you want to know if the given quantity exists independently of any human-conceived name for it, consider the existence of a rock if you did not know that it was called a rock, or if there was no word in the universe for a "rock". But imagine that it's right there, in front of you, the way it looks and smells and sounds when you scratch your nail on it. The way it feels. The way it tastes! It exists, right? Now, if there are "5" rocks in front of you, but you have no concept of what five of anything is, would the rocks appear to exist any differently upon the creation of the concept of numbers?

It would look the same, but your understanding of what you are looking at would be different. A number is not an object, but it can apply to a set of objects.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It would look the same, but your understanding of what you are looking at would be different. A number is not an object, but it can apply to a set of objects.

Right, your understanding of it would change, but does that effect any of the object's/quantity's real properties? That's what your originally question was, right? Or perhaps you were wondering about whether or not an object/quantity can only mean something once it receives conscious observation?

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Right, your understanding of it would change, but does that effect any of the object's/quantity's real properties?

Yes. Four of an object and five of the same object look different, even if the observer has never learned or thought about what numbers are.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

That's what your originally question was, right? Or perhaps you were wondering about whether or not an object/quantity can only mean something once it receives conscious observation?

No. I was asking about realities that were around long before consciousness. I just asked what the first number was. Really, I don't think there was one. I think all numbers have always existed. I started this thread to see what kinds of answers people would give.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes. Four of an object and five of the same object look different, even if the observer has never learned or thought about what numbers are.

"Assuming the quantity/object was the same both before and after the observer had any understanding of what the quantity/object is", that's how I ought to have phrased it. The existence of, say, four rocks would not be any different once my understanding of them was altered. The understanding of the symbol might change, but the real quantity/object that the observer is paying attention to isn't going to alter physically in any way.

That answer is made according to a very simplistic understanding of the universe, by the way. Throw quantum theory in there with respect to how an observer effects the reality around themselves, and you'll have another answer. Restrictions apply, results may vary.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

One and Two probably came into existence at the same time. The concept of being singular is pretty meaningless without a plurality to compare it to.

I think "that" and "those" were the first number set. Probably "that," since "those" specifies no number, and "that" specifies one (one singular or one group of other things, it;s still one). Or at least whatever translates to those words.
Maybe "gone," too.

The number 1 would have had to be the first number.
Because if the fist number to exist was, say, 2, then the only number in existance at that time to describe that number would have been 2, so it would be the 2nd number, and not the first, because "1st" didn't exist yet.

Get it?
The first number had to be one.

Then came zero, because there had to be something to signify when there wasn't one. Then came all the other numbers.

In fact, there may not be any other numbers except 0 and 1, because you can't have one "two." It's just a plural amounts of ones....