The 'arrangement' that you are referring to is on another meta level as the actual number, it's higher in the hierarchy, it is the 'position' of the symbol '0' - the set it is placed in - not the symbol itself. What you're actually referring to is the convention that when dealing with sets that an empty set counts as a set with one element. But this has nothing to do with the real world in which you can not arrange 'nothing'. It is a mathematical 'hack' and a meaningless statement.
Mathematics should be an elegant way of describing the real world but it is flawed. In Math, we can perform tricks that can't be done in the real world but in stead of questioning the conventions, syntax, symbols and notation, mathematicians start to question the real world. And then foolish statements, arguments and hypotheses emerge like 'In theory we could go backwards in time', 'In an infinite universe anything that can happen, happens infinite times' and the worst of all 'in string theory there could be up to 6 or more infinitely small dimensions 'hidden' in our 3D space'. Even time is conceived as 'real' because we use it to calculate everything, when in fact is does not exist. There is only 'now'.
No, we cannot go back in time simply because there is no memory that knows what the previous state of the universe was and if there was, there still is no known mechanism that can communicate this previous state to all particles in the universe and tells them to revert to that state. It goes against the law of causality.
No, you cannot slice a pizza, a cow or a car in twelve pieces, put them together and have the original object again. In math you can, in the real world, not so much.
What symbol do I use in math that shows a performance is irreversible? I cut a pizza in twelve, what do I get? Twelve 'slices', the pizza is gone! So 1 pizza / 12 does NOT equal 1/12 pizza it RESULTS in 12 slices of pizza. And put together they don't form a pizza, they are a collection of slices. It's irreversible. You see the problem here? Mistakes are easily made in math because the syntax is flawed, it is missing 'typing' like in programming.
And the fact that we can describe a point in 3D space with [x,y,z] does NOT mean we can invent more dimensions just by adding a,b,c,d,e,f to this notation just because we can. It is the flaw in this notation that does not limit us to exact three arguments. In programming, we first use 'models' to describe our objects and then instantiate them. If you instantiate one with more or less than the described arguments, you get a syntax error. Then you first have to make a new model based on your data. And the data should come from observation and measurement, not the other way round. It is pointless to calculate things that cannot be observed or measured. Any outcome will do and sound reasonable.
Mathematicians should think more like programmers. Get of their 'high horses' and stop acting like 'magicians'.
