Understanding how the counting argument impacts topography will be a major step in the evolution of theory. So far, the impulse of ontology has been to explain as much as is humanly possible with as few propositions as possible.
That impulse isn't wrong per se, so long as you understand what the counting argument is going to say about your ontology.
Firstly, the idea that you can map a data set of n objects to a data of < n objects is provably inaccurate.
What happens to the data when it is collapsed via this ontological impulse is pretty interesting however.
Predictably, it maps backward to states of potential. The further back it maps, ie: to include more information with less propositions, the more multiplicitous it becomes, ie: the less information about the original state you have.
"If you bang your head against the Counting Argument for long enough, you will lose the ability to disprove it." -Richard
Again, not understanding the counting argument is the number one cause of discrimination.