[wizzwizz4]

I agree. Counting might not have any intrinsic relationship to the physics of the universe, but it's a strange universe where thinking beings can exist, yet are incapable of constructing the mathematical rules that would allow them to count.

[kergonath]

For a while, people thought that a universe in which Euclid’s postulates would be wrong would be very strange indeed. In my opinion it is short-sighted to go from “it’s weird (to us, right now)” to “it’s impossible”.

On the contrary, it’s very interesting to explore the consequences of something we take for granted being actually wrong or unnecessary.

[wizzwizz4]

In a universe where Euclid's postulates are wrong, like ours, you can still construct them. You're positing a universe where it's impossible to construct counting – i.e., set theory is impossible to imagine, Peano arithmetic is impossible to imagine, Church numerals are impossible to imagine…

In such a universe, how is conscious thought even possible?

[kergonath]

> You're positing a universe where it's impossible to construct counting

Not quite. Your parent post was about thinking beings being incapable of counting, unless I misinterpreted, not about the universe making it impossible for anyone to count. My analogy is that for a while our universe was one in which non-Euclidean geometry was unfathomable for at least one thinking species, although it clearly can be observed in the universe.

Counting is something that is deeply embedded in our evolutionary tree (some fish and frogs have a primitive ability to count). So of course it seems fundamental to us. But to me this is not a proof that you cannot think without being able to count in our familiar way.

For example, you could perhaps build a logical system using uncountable quantities and still get something out of it. Like some fish which are able to see which school is bigger and base decisions on this without being able to count.