Thank you, Katerina, for your reply, explaining your position and the link (I posted twice and learned that it has an elitist approach to what can be declared mathematically; my information was not valued and actually shoved out of sight, its rulers obviously do not believe in a fair discussion — I will definitively not post there again).

If interested:

Zero as a natural number is wonderfully simple. Allow me to use Rubin’s Vase to make that obvious.

If I use 1s and 0s for this image then we get the following:

• The vase: 0 –1– 0
• The two faces: 1– 0 –1

For the vase there are two 0s and they are unimportant, just the background to the vase.

For the two faces, there is just one 0. This single 0 is still the unimportant background, but it now takes in that highly important central position.

It means that when we want to understand the big picture, we can either pick that big picture as being a vase (all is somehow united), or as two faces (that what binds us all is found in the center, which is itself in a zero spot position).

— -

As I view it, seeing zero as a natural number, it being the first of the natural numbers, and as functional as well may be a very dangerous idea in light of the following:

• The material universe did then not derive from a unified reality, but rather from the lack thereof. All matter came then into being because separation could get established at the end of the prior state of the universe. Many will not like that idea. Scientists are looking for unification among all forces, while at minimum two levels are then needed (the 0 level and the 1 level next to it, more on that below).
• God can then not exist as a unifying aspect among all, and Spinoza's description of God (written down 400 years ago) is then the only correct view on God being a correct concept but as an abstract only. Many will not like that idea. Established religious leaders may not want to move back to the concept of many gods (or declaring Hinduism as most correct).
• Groups are the reality, while a leader is then just a special part of the group. This can undermine the power structure and the cohesion of a group. Many will not like that idea. Those in higher up places (in politics, industries and societal groups) often rely on people adhering to their leadership. If this is exposed as less natural than individualism, then their roles diminish.
• We tend to place an artificial 1 on top of the natural 0 position. Enormous forces in society are indeed based on a collective unification/support. Speaking one language, for instance, or using one and the same currency, is based on the notion that this is natural, while in essence it is a fabricated reality that ended up being highly beneficial. Many will not like promoting the idea that words and money are not natural by themselves.

There is therefore a strong pull toward 1 and a push away from 0, Katerina.

Seeing zero as fundamental and in true first position can be undermining for (some in) society. It is associated with enormous power.

Same power reality occurs with the empty wallet. Entire nations rise early in the morning to make sure the wallet does not remain empty. What is artificial in nature, but once accepted by all in society, contains a 0 spot that is enormously powerful. Same is true in politics. By adhering to a 0 spot that we ourselves are subjected to the outcomes of our political institutions, we have accepted a 1 in our 0 spot that we have otherwise no control over except through making use of the tools that come with the institution. For instance, through working and making money, or voting and exercising our rights.

It also shows that a context must exist for zero to receive its proper meaning. And that is actually quite normal. Take, for instance, the word blue and we know nothing about it with certainty until the larger context is expressed. Blue means something quite different in a paint store than on the couch with the shrink.

The truth of a word is always nudged by the context in which it is used. I hope you see how the 1 is placed inside a larger 1 and that both 1s are not of the same reality. We must use both 1s to accept what is being said as truthful.

With 0 this is also the case. We need a larger 1 (the setting) before we can understand what is being said with 0. We cannot declare 0 by itself.

So, when the material universe came into existence, then we can start out with a 0 position. This position does not mean 'nothing', rather it means 'nothing in light of matter'. The context is matter, and everyone and their mother agrees that matter is a result, not the original. Yet when discussing what existed prior, scientists refuse to discuss in the open the scientific 0 position (in which the source of matter is found, but that itself is not yet expressed as matter). They demand that the discussion is based on the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etcetera that is found among matter.

We therefore need two levels, also in science. Not sure if you are aware of the desire to link General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics, but the truthful answer would then be two positions:

GR (1), QM (0)
GR (0), QM (1)

This is already show with rolling a die.

Roll it once, and the outcome is uncertain (QM).

Roll it a million times, and the outcome is quite certain (GR). Number 3, for instance, will get rolled one-sixth of the time. We have certainty and uncertainty with the die showing us its reality.

As such, looking for GR and QM at a single level is then not very smart.

Thank you, Katerina, for letting me express myself here toward you. I am glad that you see zero as a natural number.

The interesting part is of course that 1 from the decimal system can be seen as the number that shows functional unification and can as such be seen as singular in essence. But 1 is also the only number that can have that function. Or… perhaps said better:

0 is not singular, while many perceive it as singular.

010 is already a good example to show how 0 has at least two different functions. The first zero can be left out of 010 and this would not change the outcome. Many people adhere to this function of zero and make it unimportant.

Leaving the second zero out of 010 and the number changed dramatically. This is the other function of 0. It occupies a position. As such, it prevents that position being taken in by any other number or function. In the materialization process, the first step was separation among all in the prior state. As such, a new position was created that none of everything else that existed could occupy.

https://fred-rick.medium.com/the-ambivalence-of-number-1-58cec258452b

If interested in more (though be forewarned that this specific article ends in a political statement).

Thanks a bunch once again.

Fred-Rick