**Numbers are quantifiers**. They quantify (count) SI Measuring Units. These, however, rely on:-

**physical phenomena**based on electricity, magnetism and light;- the
**speed**of light being measured in**3D Space:**- metres [basic
**space**unit “1”] per second [basic**time**unit “1”]; - kilometres [x 1000] per hour [x 3600];

- metres [basic
**‘4D’ Time:**- astronomical units per day [x 86,400 seconds];
- parsecs [unit of 1D length] per year [x 31,557,600 seconds];

**space**to be 3D – measured in 1D metres^{1}, 2D metres^{2}, 3D metres^{3};- my “Dimensional Digital Number” alternative is:
- 1
^{1}, 1^{2}, 1^{3}as 3D space units or “Shapes of Magnitude in Space” - and geo-metric “Shapes of Movement and Motion” for quantifying time;

- 1

- my “Dimensional Digital Number” alternative is:
**time**to be the 4^{th}dimension – measured in seconds, minutes or hours;- in 3D space, a
*dimension*is orthogonal [perpendicular, i.e. 90^{0}or horizontal or vertical]; - the question is, once again, one of definition.

- in 3D space, a

Can my concepts of **“3D Numbers” **and **“3D NumberSpace”** in conjunction with **“3D TimeSpace”** [as opposed to nD spacetime] become acceptable *models *for independence of *scale *and *phenomenon*?

My “Smart Knowledge” software has already been private proof of concept.

NEXT: Enhancing Visualisation Technologies by Digital Number Concepts