There is no such thing as plurality, only corollary.
This is a maxim which, though it may appear simple, if not somewhat abstruse, is predicated upon hours and hours of thought and discursive logic. I am arguing from several different angles here, all of them equally effective in proving the maxim, I think.
The non-existence of space. That is, I reject the idea that a vacuum of things (the absence of that which IS) is a thing in and of itself. That which is the absence of all that exists cannot, by necessity AND by definition, itself exist. Of course, the idea of plurality of existence depends upon the notion that there is a physical separation of objects: that A is literally distinct from B, and this because of the actual presence of absence (contradiction alert) between them. This is an utterly irrational assertion and conclusion. If space is a thing, then what, for instance, is between space and objects A and B? Space, being itself an object, would need to be absolutely distinct from A and B, as A and B are absolutely distinct from each other. So now, instead of a plurality of existence between objects A and B, you have a plurality of existence betweem objects A and B and space–let’s call space, C. Which means that now you must insert object D, which is the space between A and C and, B and C. Which means that now you must introduce object E, which is the space between A and C and D; and B and C and D. And this goes on indefinitely. Once the distinction–the space–between A and B becomes itself its own existent object, you have created an infinite number of “spaces” between objects. Thus, to define plurality this way makes any existential relationship–any actual interaction between A and B–impossible…because they have become INFINITELY distinct. The fact that they exist infinitely distinct from one another means that their existence cannot accommodate or integrate the existence of any other object. They are completely defined by the infinity of their absolutely distinct existence. Thus, things become merely distinction itself. And distinction, as I’ve already explained, is not a thing itself, but the absence of things.
A and B relate relatively to one another. At no point, except conceptually, does either object form the objective reference of the relationship. Depending upon the needs and frame of reference of the conceptualizing agent (the observer), either A is the reference OR B is the reference. In and of themselves, A and B are existentially and thus relationally absolutely identical. There is NO objective distinction, and thus no definition, possible unless the conceptualizing agent is there to provide the conceptual context whereby A or B can, at any given moment, become the reference for the relative relationship. What this means is that the idea of a literal distinction between objects A and B is impossible, because that kind of distinction, being wholly relative, is, in and of itself, impossible to define. Only the conceptualizing agent can provide the context whereby any relationship, and thus any true, relevant, and therefore actual distinction, is possible.
Number two being the case, there can be no actual distinction absent the observation of the conceptualizing agent. Observation of a thing, however, in order to produce a concept (by which the observer is known to actually observe someTHING), requires a relative relationship between A and B. But a relative relationship requires relatively existing objects…and note the plural form of that word. Relativity between objects demands that there can be no SINGULAR object which exists in and of itself. For without a relative relationship, which requires two or more objects, no object can be defined; for EVERY object which is said to be this or that can only be defined according to how it RELATIVELY relates to another object (or other objects). This makes literal, physical plurality impossible. For it is not the DISTINCTION between A and B which ultimately creates their definitions, but the fact that they are existential COROLLARIES. That is, the existence of A inexorably demands the corollary existence of B. There is no A without its corollary B, and vice versa. I am not saying A is B, I am saying they are corollaries. I am saying that their distinction is one of utterly relative relationship, resulting in the concept, by the observer, which becomes A, and the concept which becomes B.