Perhaps if we started by enumerating and defining the terms?

Well you know I have been delving into this (for a decade that you may not know.) The herculean task of bending the mathematical parlance of a planet aside, this is a great question. I hope you can follow my answer and perhaps relay it to others.

So the physical reality we know of, if we believe at all in positivistic scientism, is finite. There are no things existent in the universe that can be enumerated to infinity. These are including division of time no matter how infinitesimally -a word does not imply a meaning denotatively- quantumly divided. We could also rule out there NOT being an infinity of other spaces THAT IS multi-verses. It's also just a word and 'multi' has no infinite connotations when counting the amounts of existent space. So we've established some ground rules that distinguish the mathematical actuality of interest, from our non-mathematic physicality.

We do this ground stabilizing because we believe there can be an extensionality between physicality and actuality. Mathematics decades ago lost out on an extensional logic as TOE, so maybe the only recourse to win it back is to play unfairly. That is read Godel and then not argue except continue to disagree! Unfair is not a foundational math, instead a castle built on a different seashore -perhaps a mere psychologism? If there are no infinite essences within physicality then there is the interpretation that there is a nothingness or zero essence. Plainly when we speak of math it is the emptiness of infinities in our own relatable world.

So, Kroenecker says emphatically "God, made the integers." Yet ironically by having not made those infinities tangibly existent, or any others like the sides of a circle, or the bottom of the Mandelbrot graph etc, he/she/it has let us imagine an absence nothingness and ostensible zero measure in the center of reality -I dislike that word for it plays to much on real numbers. 'How much math, is there for the senses to observe?" Well we know that as far as infinitely enumerated maths goes the answer is none. So apparently the chicken egg question as to what comes first with respect to zero and infinity, seems to be zero, where in ⫷¬∞⇒0⫸. This tells us something utterly concrete about our zero vs one question.

One to infinity is considered an indeterminate value. Now we should not borrow abstract ideas from wherever when forming ourselves on our own TOE. It does make corresponding common sense to our above platitudes until there is more substantial evidence (like a derivation of the nature of two to infinity as sub-indeterminate) when we note the following. Suppose we count a single orange? Since no other physical infinity exist raising that count to infinity in actuality is impossible. This is not withstanding the rationals within mathematics having nothing to do with anything outside of it. So one, unlike zero, is in agreement no matter the respective. Until we fathom the unthinkable: one might not be mathematical at all. Anyway.

Yet neither might zero be, if mathematics abstractly is en-total a revolving door of contra-information? We defined zero via the absence of infinities in our non-math realm. AND THEN from in the math realm like little sci-fi adventurers trying to point to zero, have to concede its very existence is made possible reflexively by non-un-finiteness. The pro-zero nature of maths was established by anti-infiniteness. Yet maths as inherently pro-infinite seems to require some anti-zero. There's no such proof [yet] and this is probably where modern mathematical paradoxes stepped easily onto the stage. Now we do not hope to be left hanging without any answers, yet there is a clue.

Canto enumerates the un-countableness of reals via the diagonal method. This utilizes a listing of positive reals between zero an one -open interval at one. If The DM where to be replicated for the negative reals technically constructively it would fail, more more quickly that the original constructively fails with unrestricted comprehension. That's just a fancy way of saying set theorist put constraints on the menageries of their own set-building activities, most crucially Zorn's lemma. Negative zero has already been counted and thus the paradox that proving the existence of the uncountable set of positive reals blocks the proof from working for logically, w/ negative reals.

[see meme] We are not given minus zero, and veritably there will be no axiomatic plus zero; we'll have to de-axiomatize -sorry- ⫷f(-0)≠0⫸ or anythin else and define it from those ⫷g(¬∞)=-0⫸ that did make a lot of sense highly informally albeit from the bizzarro psychologism that is more extreme than Kroenecker's.

The steadfast reply at least from us the Hercules beetle of outsider maths, "Disparadoxically no one should be able to not count minus zero becuase it isn't mathematical at all." So then where does zero come from if not from itself or from one logically or from a simplistic algebraic slight of hand with minus zero the uncountable of all uncountables. The thing that no one has noticed is that there is a property that no math ever lacks and that is meaningfulness. It's a twist on the liars paradox that shows this. If 'this is meaningless' is true then there was not enough meaning there in the first place for the basis of the proof. Now juxtapose with 'this is inexistent' which needs no proviness at all. It must be false or else if true we make it so by ignoring. The later seems a lot like what is happening with minus zero. Yet there is an interpretation as the former.

Functions of meaningless properties in algebra should be more meaningless results. Therefore an infinity quantity of meaningless algebraic functions as inadmissible mathematically, much the way an infinite quantity of say physical dog counting was inadmissible by our posited scholar of mathematical objectivism, should 'stand in' for our definition of zero as the absence of some infinity. The endless one's decimal according to information theory [and mentioned to us by our brother] has no meaning because it contains less information that any other string. Once we prove from many years of deriving that ⫷{(∞-1)/∞}^∞={(∞-1)/∞}⫸ is an anachronistically un-divergent function then there is realized -ugh- such an infinite set of meaningless values. A competent set theorist could then go on to derive a newly viable set theory rescued from the crashing waves of their own effortful strivings. Algebra's where the meaningless value are raised to minus zero are reasonable and show more or less directly derived that earlier premise. We symbolize as an upside down Yen whereby ⫷¥ud-¥ud=¥ud⫸ and if ⫷¥ud=-0⫸ as it certainly appears so all is well in whatever math realm we choose to entertain next.

The result that most fascinates and may sell the math most well is that the golden ratio appears to be infinite. I mean it is we just have not stored its equation precisely in our crafting box. Minus infinity, or the other way around is the, the multiplicative inverse. How roughly does this happen?? Well the trailing decimal of ⫷ϕ⫸ has been conjectured in mental ruminations as an endless string of one's. [meme]

I get lost here, though the first section evokes the idea of nonexistence. Not the absence of a particular thing, but the absolute nonexistence of anything. An anti-singularity of sorts. To my thinking, the first law of thermodynamics proves that absolute nonexistence is limited to a concept, but perhaps there is math to prove the categorical impossibility of actual, absolute nonexistence? Perhaps this is denoted by -0? Our language isn't geared towards expressing concepts which do not affirm themselves, so math has a better chance of this than do my sophistic efforts.

Here's another old meme, though I misstated the premise as I meant it in strictly physical terms.
imgflip.com/i/5zmfbx

As a layman I get a bit lost here but. I'm typically insistent on comprehending the why of things, but higher math is so far out of my field of expertise that I'm content to take your word for it. I do wish I was able to provide you with the informed and insightful responses these comments deserve.

I was going to post this link before I saw your subsequent comments, so I'll just put it here.
imgflip.com/i/5qnjwl

If you were standing along the final miles of a marathon and were notice by a runner? Would you proclaim, 'I did not have the physique nor breathing stamina to jog even a mile along side you. I do wish I could have participated more. Than just standing around?" The runner says, 'No worries; without a crowd to greet us at the Finnish, there would be no race.'

Neat! I believe I followed most of that. I had intended for this question to ease the stream back into actual thought, with a matter of simple semantics...like the chicken and the egg. Mathematically speaking, zero precedes 1. Conceptually speaking, zero is a relative newcomer on the scene. You have taken this question, stretched it to its limits and appear to have filled in every crease with the necessary proofs. Bravo, and thanks! Far more than I had hoped for!

It is deeply pleasing to read "There are no things existent in the universe that can be enumerated to infinity." I have long surmised that the word "infinite" is nearly as abused and misused as the word "love". Perhaps we could talk next about the different flavors of infinity? I approach the concept from a philosophical standpoint (current working definition: eternal recursion of every permutation of every physical possibility), but I know it has much more concrete definition in mathematics. True Infinity, much like the freedom of the press, cannot be limited without being lost.