What does 'that' number always get the attention

[jimmie]

noob, :)

Everyone knows that 3 apples is (are) 3 apples, and that 6 oranges is (are) 6 oranges, and that 2,768,909 widgets is (are) 2,768,909 widgets.

The only reason that you and I are able to know the above, and any and all numbers and mathematical formulae, is because our common point of reference, the number from which we all refer from, is 0 (zero).

There is always 3 things going on. There is the point being referred from, the point being referred to, and the (potential) combination of the two, respectively. Prior to that number of whatever, is this.

So, why do 'those' numbers always get the attention? Why does the point being referred to always get the attention? Why not the point being referred from, or better yet, the combination of the two (only possible if 0 gets the priority)?

And, why is it that when the point being referred to gets the attention, your awareness (perspective of all that is) of the importance of the point being referred from diminishes?

I say that 'this' number 0 is the ONLY whole number that holds together 'that' particular number, and all other particular numbers.

What do you say?

 

[DaveC426913]

Can you perhaps give some examples of all this "attention given"?

 

[jimmie]

Sure.

Statistics. Sales figures. Quotas. Interest rates. Release versions. Taxes. Channels. Number of 'troops' deployed. Income 'levels'. Odometers. Speedometers. Pi. Measurements. Categories of hurricanes. Richter scale. Third world. Number of posts/replies. Generations. Odds. Phone numbers. Appointments. Demographic groups. Member states. Deck of cards. Social Security. 9/11. Bits and bytes. Budgets. Deadlines. Deficits. Union members. RDA. Net worth. P/L. Life expectancy. Particular type of animal left in the wild. Hundreds of bodies recovered. Thousands of insurgents. Insurance. Concert tour dates. Populations. Mercury levels. Ph level. Temperature.

And, time.

You asked a good question, DaveC426913. Caught me off guard. The above examples were off the top of my head. There's probably at least 32 more examples. :)

(I am aware that the title of the thread was not correct. It should have been "Why does..." oops :) )

 

[AKG]

Absolutely none of this makes any sense to me whatsoever. And Greeks had the concept of numbers before they had the concept of 0, so I don't see how 0 should be the reference point, but then again, given I can't understand a single thing you wrote, maybe 0 should be the reference point, and maybe camels should be the fundamental stage.

 

[jimmie]

The Greeks may have been AWARE of the concept of numbers prior to being aware of the concept of 0, but their reference point was the number 0.They just were not aware of it.

It was the concept of other numbers that got all the attention, and rightly so. The process of learning and growing, and modern civilization itself, was dependant on other numbers getting the attention.

Its about where attention was placed. A young child in diapers, that has no practical experience doing anything and is not aware of the concept of any number, can often be seen pointing to a variable. By default, all individuals are born variables with the potential to transform into a constant, depending on where attention gets placed. That child IS the constant, they just are not able to be aware of it, yet.

The process of learning and growing INSIDE started by placing attention on what was outside. The process of learning and growing gets completed only after an adult individual learned what was outside (enabling them to be aware of what is inside) and IS aware of what is inside. Only the number 0 is inside. All other numbers are outside.

Lots of numbers floating around in peoples heads, and all of those variable numbers ATTACHED to them have a variable degree of meaning attached to them. And, when people thought about a particular number, the variable degree of meaning attached to that particular number in the context that they were thinking about that number, dictated how their physical body (inside) was affected. The outside was believed to be inside, and that was when all h-ll broke loose.

The only number in my head is 0.

Recorded human history may have started with the Greeks, but 0 is prior to recorded human histroy.

 

[AKG]

This really does not belong in a Philosophy of Mathematics forum. Maybe this site needs a Pseudophilosophy subforum?

 

[jimmie]

Logic is that 0 is prior to all other numbers.

After browsing through the current forum, Philosophy of Science, Mathematics & Logic, and seeing what has been discussed, and that I am discussing mathematics and logic, I say that the thread I started more than belongs in the current forum.

AKG, regarding my reply at 2:58 pm, did any of that make sense to you or are you still not able understand a single thing I wrote?

 

[matt grime]

Since the ability to discuss things numerically precedes the invention of zero by several centuries you are way off the mark. Thus in one sense (temporally) 0 is not logcally before any other numbers, and since there are negative numbers that appear before 0 in any natural ordering 0 is preceded by other numbers in another sense.

This is based upon the little that is understandable in your explanations. (you appear to think that 3 means 3 more than zero or something, right?)

 

[AKG]

No, nothing you are writing makes any sense. And my point was (and this should have been clear because I wrote it in bold) that this is a Philosophy subforum, but you haven't written anything that could be considered philosophy of mathematics, you've written something incomprehensible on the topic of mathematics.