You sounds like you'd enjoy learning about the Surreal Numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPn2AdMH7UQ (15m video starring Don Knuth) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eAmxgINXrE (1h15m video starring John Conway)

It may be the case that you've already heard of the Surreal Numbers, but I remain confident you enjoyed learning about them. :)

I had a similar thought about numbers that exist or don't.

In my book, something like two or ten exists - because my kid can hold up 2 fingers and say 2 or all of them and say 10. I am saying that you can actually count to those numbers in physical space.

But at some point, the number is like larger than the number of atoms in the universe (or whatever you think is the biggest domain we can count) and once you go past that number, your counts represent abstract numbers that don't have a physical representation.

Sounds like ultrafinism or actualism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actualism

So .. if the world has 10 marbles we may only count to 10 ..?

This despite there being ( 10 x 9 ) groupings of pairs of those 10 marbles?

For any of those 90 pairs we can show a physical example of ( this marble, that marble ).

Someone once said that whatever follows "So..." Is going to be a misrepresentation of what one said :)

In my comment I said "or whatever is the largest domain you think you can count". So in your example we still run out of physical stuff that can be counted (at 90) right?

> whatever follows "So..." Is going to be a misrepresentation of what one said :)

> So in your example .. right?

Not at all, and it's pretty clear why :)

"Zero is nothing" is my first objection here. Zero is not always Nothing; I feel like there are many mathematical zeros (including Nothing).

The duality of existence and non-existence means that We all share fundamentals, totally agree with you there.

Zero is not even absence it would be absolutely nothing, irreducibly nothing.

Though a strange thought has occurred that existence of One implies Zero by it's lack of absence. But this feel incoherent because these two poles can never exist together.

Counterexample: qubits

I'm trying to parse this.

Do you mean zero implies one by its lack of absence?

I feel the difficulty is that they can't exist together. But it was more a musing on my part, please forgive me that indulgence.

I'm wondering that if we were to consider a platonic view of forms through planes of physicality, idea and thought is it the case that all that exists across them is One?

Feels a bit like Bertrand Russel and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematica.

They spend some 350 pages proving 1 + 1 = 2 from very primitive principles, including the existence of numbers themselves. Turns out, numbers, even One, are non-primitive constructs.

It feels like our Being is one and unique and therefore provides an irreducible concept of One that we are all presumably experiencing.

We only share our object reality not our sense of Being and so while for me this seems like a singular concept I can not witness what it is for you or anyone else.

Interestingly, many number systems (like Piano numbers and Surreal numbers) start with zero & build up from there.