No. You can measure a distance because it is a physical object. So that's a direct disagreement. It means able to be measured. But then what is physically real and "able to be measured?" and who decides? If instead you just forget about what a distance "really" is and measure it, then distance might be defined that way. Besides, we usually have an intuitive concept of distance, it's something evolved animals probably need. But need isn't a good place to start if you want an operational definition, eh? What does a distance need to be physically real, instead of a concept? Is that even a question? And a process isn't an object, in your logic? It is in mine. But these conceptual objects--numbers--really exist when you have physical things to count. Notice how one sheep is not the same as three sheep. This is not a concept, it's a physical fact. The numbers "exist" when physical objects exist that can be counted, even if a concept of numbers or a concept of counting, or a concept of sheep, really exist or not. The sheep are there whether or not a human has any concepts. More than one planet has been orbiting the sun since well before humans counted the planets. So how long has that been physically true or "real", that a number of planets has been there? What have humans conceiving of numbers had to do with it? And the answer to that question is--nothing at all. The number of planets has absolutely nothing to do with humans and concepts. James, you seem to be hopelessly confused about what you think you know about physics. Please, as I've asked before, just stop. Just keep all those wonderful insights to yourself. I don't need you to tell me about them. I don't really get what they mean. Stop James. Won't you stop, James?