> nothing can be apart from Nothing

Clarify? There are mysteries in the one, such as the fact that if there is something surrounded by nothing (like a black dot on a sheet of paper), that is already a Twoness, not a Oneness.

You can allow for conceptual twoness but both have to exist within the same space. Space itself is said to pervade the sheet, the dot, the pencil, etc. So if you take one more step back from space, then you say, in which common substratum do space, time, constraints, etc exist? What pervades these like space pervades the sheet and dot?

A panpsychist would say whatever this is, it must contain the most fundamental building blocks from which we derive conscious experience. But you don't have to go that far, you just have to sit still and inquire into that original zero point that allows for your own individual (seemingly dualistic) subject experience.

You could make an analogy (this is borrowed from Advaita): yes there are many waves on an ocean, but the ocean itself is one. Conceptually there are many waves but in reality there isn't anything such as a wave.

Similarly your own bubble of conscious experience is tied to local instrumentation (your eyes, your brain, etc). But like bubbles in a basin of soapy water, it's really not substantially apart.

If you think of matter probabilistically, you realize the best analog is just "information" — every experience of this information arises from something. Of course twoness in this information is a matter of fact, but it's easy enough to say yes, these are abstractions of One. Or these are abstractions of Zero.

It's just a matter of language and what you prescribe to reality or what you prescribe to conceptual illusion.