No sarcasm here on this answer but it’s valid because that’s how things are counted.

But measuring isn't counting

What if his but is bigger than yours?

Don't you dare talk **** about my butt

I thought of addressing that. Measuring is determining the number of units of measurement so although you don’t have to count to get there the number you arrive at can be counted to so the same rule applies.

Butt that exact idea of getting there along a sequence of increasing magnitude is invalid when you talk about measuring
You don't necessarily arrive at a measured value from below

Negative or positive numbers or whatever you can still count your way there. The process of measuring is different but the number is still a number.

Of course, but that isn't relevant. You can count the amount of sheep in a meadow, but you can't say that it's more likely that there are 5 sheep instead of 6 because 5 comes before 6

I appreciate you entertaining this topic.

I’m going to reply that yes you can because there cannot be 6 sheep without five sheep but there can be five sheep without the sixth sheep.

Joe Dispenza is one of those guys who manages to stay off Wikipedia obviously to avoid accusations of pseudoscience.

Does anyone what the process is? Can you simply tell wiki that you don’t want a page?