In the echoes of doubt, I hear my destiny calling

If the spacing between numbers is arbitrary, it doesn't just call into question how we represent them-it suggests that numbers themselves are more fluid than we thought. We treat them as these untouchable absolutes, but what if they're just constructs shaped by the lens of perception, much like language or symbols?
Go beyond that: if space affects how we see numbers, then perhaps numbers aren't intrinsic truths but flexible tools, molded by our need for order. The concept of "two" or "three" may exist independently, but the way we interact with those numbers-their arrangement, their form-is entirely subjective. This means that numbers, as we use them, aren’t the building blocks of reality but the interpretations of it.
In essence, numbers aren't as objective as we assume. They’re subject to the same biases, constraints, and perceptions as everything else. The real revelation here is that what we take for granted as fundamental truths-math, structure, even logic-might be more a reflection of our minds than of the universe itself. The arbitrary spacing shows that even the most precise systems are, in some way, influenced by the spaces we choose to fill in. Reality, it seems, might be far more subjective than we ever dared to imagine.