what does it all not mean?

I just realized something today that is the most significant discovery in mathematics since Zero was invented by the Aztec who realized he didn't have anything and it is this: zero is only zero when you can also have negative numbers; at all other times it is not zero but "no" or "absent".  For example, if you are measuring temperature zero degrees means something only because it is not the absence of degrees or of temperature - ZERO IS A NUMBER!.  But if you are measuring something that cannot be negative, zero is not a number but a discrete condition.  Zero apples is not zero apples but "no apples" or the absence of apples -  IT IS NOT A NUMBER!  If you want to know the average temperature go ahead and throw all the zeros in because that makes sense but if you have 1,5,3,0 and then 6 apples you DO NOT have an average amount of 3 apples (15/5) know matter who you are, you in fact have an average amount of 3.75 apples (15/4) because you CANNOT mathematically average the condition of absence with numbers no more than you can average letters with numbers and that is a fucking fact.  Now I'm not saying that knowing that you had 0 apples is useless information because if you want to know how frequently you have apples that is when you use the zero (4 out of 5 times or 80% of the time you had apples).  So you had apples 80% of the time and that 80% of the time the average amount was 3.75 apples and that is what you had and not anything else.  This means when you go back to the apple basket each day 20% of the time you will have no apples, and 80% of the time you'll have about 3.75 apples and this is simply NOT that same as having about 3 apples 100% of the time which is how averages are currently calculated.  It is simply two separate kinds of information.  Therefore, I propose we retain the present term and symbol for zero when it is truly a numeric value while we use the term "Corgan" in place of zero when it is discrete and only means the condition of absence.