There are multiple temperature scales that set zero at absolute zero. The “width” of their degrees vary arbitrarily. Because of this, Kelvin is still an arbitrary scale.
The other metric units are objectively superior and given to greater precision.
Eh, I think you need to rethink that. Show me a measurement in metric, and I can show you a smaller measurement in US Customary. (The reverse is also true, of course. Any measurement I give you in decimal inches, you can show me a smaller one in metric). Both systems are capable of an arbitrary degree of precision. Precision is certainly not one of the benefits of metric.
Metric is not “objectively” superior. Metric’s superiority is based on the subjective idea that base-10 scalability is a desirable quality. There are many, many reasons supporting that idea, but there are also certain circumstances for which base-10 is not particularly well suited. Scaling by a factor of 3, for example.
The idea of base-10 scalability effectively prohibits the metrification of angular measurements: geometry is extraordinarily ugly when you need to represent 1/6th of a circle comprised of 1, 10, 100, or 1000 Degrees, since no power of 10 is evenly divisible by 6. When you can’t even represent an equilateral triangle without repeating digits, your system won’t be adopted for that use.
Now, if we had evolved with 12 fingers, and developed a number system with 2 additional digits, 6 6 would equal 10. (6 6)^2 would be 100. We’d have an entirely different multiplication table, but a duodecimal metric system would be extraordinarily elegant. With 2 more fingers, we’d have metric clocks. Instead, we are stuck with some bastardized sexagesimal compatibility layer and everyone hates trigonometry.
There are multiple temperature scales that set zero at absolute zero. The “width” of their degrees vary arbitrarily. Because of this, Kelvin is still an arbitrary scale.
Eh, I think you need to rethink that. Show me a measurement in metric, and I can show you a smaller measurement in US Customary. (The reverse is also true, of course. Any measurement I give you in decimal inches, you can show me a smaller one in metric). Both systems are capable of an arbitrary degree of precision. Precision is certainly not one of the benefits of metric.
Metric is not “objectively” superior. Metric’s superiority is based on the subjective idea that base-10 scalability is a desirable quality. There are many, many reasons supporting that idea, but there are also certain circumstances for which base-10 is not particularly well suited. Scaling by a factor of 3, for example.
The idea of base-10 scalability effectively prohibits the metrification of angular measurements: geometry is extraordinarily ugly when you need to represent 1/6th of a circle comprised of 1, 10, 100, or 1000 Degrees, since no power of 10 is evenly divisible by 6. When you can’t even represent an equilateral triangle without repeating digits, your system won’t be adopted for that use.
Now, if we had evolved with 12 fingers, and developed a number system with 2 additional digits, 6 6 would equal 10. (6 6)^2 would be 100. We’d have an entirely different multiplication table, but a duodecimal metric system would be extraordinarily elegant. With 2 more fingers, we’d have metric clocks. Instead, we are stuck with some bastardized sexagesimal compatibility layer and everyone hates trigonometry.