Bruno asked why I have problems how to figure out *'numbers'*. * * In his texts (as I remember and I have no quotes at hand) the "world" can be construed from a large enough amount of numbers in simple arithmetical ways (addition-subtraction). Also: numbers do not mean quantities. If his older post with pegs (II=two, IIII=four etc.) is OK, the 'words' two and four DO mean quantities. If not, as 'numbers' they are meaningless combinations of letters (sounds?) we could call the series any way, as well as e.g.: tylba, chuggon, rpais, etc. for 1,2,3 - or take them from any other language (eins,zwei,drei, - egy, kettő, három) as they developed in diverse domains/lifestyles. The 'numbers' would be like "Ding an Sich" (German) however used as qualifiers for quantities if so applied (see Bruno's 'pegs' above).
More reasonably sounds the idea of my wife, Maria, who assigns the primitive development of quantities originally to proportions: "larger (amount)" - "smaller (amount)" evolving in some thousand centuries into the process of 'counting' the included units. I published on this list my thought for developing the Roman numbering signs. I started with 2 - a PAIR of hands etc. (not with one, which means only the existence) and branching into 5 (as fingers, as in pentaton music) already as 'many'. I still have no idea what description could fit *'number'* in Bruno's usage (I did not study number - theory - to keep my common sense (agnostic?) thinking free). John Mikes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
