> I'm just pointing that without arbitrarily dividing the world into separate parts, numbers don't arise. I agree. Though I think a stronger statement is also

> I'm just pointing that without arbitrarily dividing the world into separate parts, numbers don't arise. I agree. Though I think a stronger statement is also true: Without "arbitrarily" dividing the world into separate parts, non-trivial thought is not possible. Assuming by "parts", you mean "categories", I think my statement is still true. And, once we have categories, we can use numbers to compress information, which in terms allow us to perform more complex computation/though with our limited computational power. As to how arbitrary our categories are, one could argue that some are hardwired to our DNA, as claimed by Chomsky(1). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar