alt Hacker NewsThis is interesting, it reminds me of the chain of logic from this article:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/
> In a reality containing nothing, there are no things as such — at least no material things. But in such a nothing, there is an abstract thing: zero.
> Zero reflects the number of material things to count. But how many abstract things are there to count? There is at least one. The one number that exists to define the number of material things is zero.
> But if we have one number and it is one thing to count, now another number exists: one. We then have zero and one together as the only numbers. But now we have two numbers. Now two exists…
Your grandfather's explanation seems to echo this in terms appropriate for a 10-year-old - there is something inherently unstable about nothingness.
Null set as 0 and then successor method of defining new numbers.
But your way of putting it is like these successor function could be considered as edges of graphs or references or signposts
Imagine a number system with 3 distinct types of Null Sets and they meet at number P after applying successor function for 10, 42, 135 times respectively.