Do you believe in god or math?

[CliveStaples]

However, it still served to demonstrate the importance of physical units of "oneness".

And that was the POINT I was attempting to expose.

You've got to comprehend very clearly the importance of the physical meaning of a quantity of "ONE" before it's even worth moving on to the next step.

Moving forward without that comprehension being made crystal clear would be totally futile.

And to be perfectly honest I don't see anyone grasping this trivial first step.

Rythmn thinks it was a cheap shot to belittle mathematics that miserably failed.

CliveStaples made it clear that he doesn't yet understand what I'm even talking about when I say "well-defined" quantitative property or "oneness".

So even if you guys were taking me seriously we appear to be at a dead end already anyway.

I don't see a distinction between "oneness" and "the image of 0 under the successor function" where the successor function is defined in accordance with the Peano axioms. They're the same thing. You start with an additive identity; the "next" thing you have is 1, or "oneness", etc.