120
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
120 points (76.3% liked)
Showerthoughts
30039 readers
738 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Symbols for numbers can obviously be different. Numbers themselves can not.
Pardon? We already have multiple different ways to express numbers, they are completely arbitrary. Why would alternate universes not have different ways to express numbers, like we already do?
Which facts do you speak of?
If you look at a single item, why do we call it 1? Why not 2? Why not 3? Because it’s arbitrary and the numbers are an expression of what we see. So yes in alternate universes 3 can be between 1 and 2. Since the expression of numbers is meaningless.
It could, like we call the number two 10 in binary, or 1+1 or II or whatever. Numbers can have any symbol associated to it, but the abstract object they refer to is the same.
The thoughts not about objects though it’s about the arbitrary distinction we’ve made, so I really don’t see why that matters here?
Did you read my reply? Again, the ways to express numbers can be different, but the numbers themselves can not. Aliens in a different universe may use a different way to denote the number 3, but no matter how they denote it, it is not between 1 and 2.
I did, you clearly haven’t read mine. Your comment has nothing to do with their post, it’s not about objects it’s about the arbitrary distinction we’ve applied to them.