Take any random variable $X$ that follows some distribution $P(X)$. I was looking at this Wikipedia page and I'm trying to get some intuition for why we choose to define standard moments the way we do. Specifically, we define
\begin{align*} \mu_k &= \int dX P(X) (X - \mu)^k \\ \sigma_k &= \sqrt{\mu_2}^k\\ &=\left(\int dX P(X) (X - \mu)^2\right)^{k/2} \end{align*}
From this, we get the standard moments which are defined as $\tilde{\mu_i} = \mu_i/\sigma_i$. These standard moments can be used to make comparisons across distributions.
I'm not sure if my interpretation of what is happening is correct. One can always shift the points such that the mean is 0. This is, we are choosing to look at $X' = (X - \mu)$ instead of $X$. Next, we scale the values of $X'$ such that the variance is unity.
It seems like this is the end of the line - at least the standard moments only seek to ensure that the mean is 0 and variance is 1. There is no other global transformation we can do that preserves the inherent qualities of the distribution. Moreover, when we are comparing unrelated quantities (e.g. the heights of people in a class and the weights say) the first two transformations correspond to unphysical things (namely, the zero of our scale and the units we choose to measure in).
Therefore, the standard moments are simply eliminating the degrees of freedom we have when characterizing arbitrary data. Moreover, there are no additional degrees of freedom i.e. no further transformations we can do to set the higher moments to zero without changing the mean and the variance. Is this correct?