Hm, so essentially your argument is that an object is a label that we put upon a quantity of stuff? I'm not sure that I agree, but for the sake of argument, ev

Hm, so essentially your argument is that an object is a label that we put upon a quantity of stuff? I'm not sure that I agree, but for the sake of argument, even if I accept that principle, you can still count how many of that quantity of stuff you have. If I decide that a mug is made up of one part, then if I get a second mug, I have 2 mugs. If I instead say that a mug is made up of 10^26 objects, and I get another 10^26 objects, I'll have 20^26 objects. It's easier to count 1 + 1 than 10^26 + 10^26, but there's no change in the fundamental principle of counting just because we don't agree on the number we have to count up to. All of these are predictable and create natural mathematics through addition and subtraction (or multiplication/division, which are basically just repeated addition/subtraction). > Seeing a mug as a whole instead of a bunch of sub-atom waveforms[1] is a choice [...] Our brain is doing that because that bunch of subatomic waveforms have useful properties when considered together. They can hold quantities of other bunches of subatomic waveforms, for example, whereas a different collection of subatomic waveforms like my desk would not hold my coffee. Your contention that there's no such thing as an object seems a bit solipsistic, and more of a philosophical question than a relevant or useful way of thinking about the universe as we experience it.