(June 9, 2010 at 2:30 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:(June 8, 2010 at 2:25 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: it's easy to create new counting systems but they are just different ways to describe the same thing. like how a binary counting system may be translated to our base 10 counting system in our universe (see you don't even need to go to other universes to make new counting systems). you must be sleepy... 2 + 2 = 4 in a base 10 counting system in any universe. my example of you counting four fingers had nothing to do with your fingers but just you acknowledging 4 objects, no matter the counting system you choose.It's easy to create arithmetic that is really different from common arithemetic. Modular arithmetic is an example. It 'wraps around' like clock counting. Base 10 however differs from base 2 only in phyrepresentation.
that's what i was explaining to saerules. her 'refutation' wasn't really a refutation unless I was arguing that there could be only one counting system which I'm not.
Quote:So there is no necessary relation between arithmetic and physical reality. There is no rule that says things in other universes should be countable at all.
why not? what reason is there that things in other universes wouldn't be countable?
