So, it’s not uncommon for me to hear that “the universe” does not use the same base-10 number system that we use, so I shouldn’t try to draw any kind of direct correlations as a matter of principle, regardless of what I’m looking at unless I frame it in some tried-and-true context, hammered out by the best and brightest, generation after generation… giants, gods, (mostly) men whose names are indelibly etched into history by those who exalt them and keep watch over their crypts.
The thing is, when you all say “base-10,” I don’t think that means what you think it means. The way I see it, we use a “base-1” number system. Of course, you say, “no, it’s base-10 because there are 10 numbers, 0-9.” To that, I call BS.
Case-in-Point the 1st: You all consider base-100 to also be base-10 because 100=102. Likewise, I expect you will find base-1,000 to also be base-10 because 1,000=103, and so on and so forth;
Case-in-Point the 2nd: The number 10 is the 11th number in so-called “base-10” math. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (that’s 10 numbers) and then 10 (the 11th number;)
Case-in-Point the 3rd: How should you represent integers less than 10? is it, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5… or is it 01, 02, 03, 04, 05?;
Case-in-Point the 4th: Integers don’t increment or decrement in tens, they increment in ones. In fact, regardless of the base number, according to all of you, every system, whether base-26 or base-360 increments and decrements 1 number at a time; 1, then 2, then 3, or 3, then 2, then 1;
Case-in-Point the 5th: You all decided to call it “base” 10 and not something else like “10-set” or “10 numeral.” Considering how we all math, in what way is the 10 the “base” of the system? If “base” is supposed to somehow indicate the denominator of a fraction, who would do that and why?;
Case-in-Point the 6th: Ultimately, the only mathematical distinction between 10 and 1 is placement of the decimal point, which is inherently arbitrary. In other words, there is no real distinction between “base-10” and “base-1” except the former is kinda dumb, while the latter makes a lot more sense. Which brings me to my actual point.
All number systems are inherently arbitrary, they are because we decide they are. Therefore, all mathematical operations are likewise arbitrary. Nature has patterns, and we use numbers and math to describe those patterns. It is irrelevant which number system and what kind of math you use, so long as the natural pattern is identified and reproduced with fidelity. The need for anything more than that is likely the result of some mental disease or defect and not my problem.