Mass nouns and count nouns

 If $P$ is predicated of $A$ then it may be the case that  for every part $B$ of $A$ $P$ is also predicated of $B$ - or it may not.   For example if some snow is white, then every portion of that snow is white.   But if a group of people are twelve then it does not follow that a part of that group, let us say five people, are also twelve.  The similarity to the distinction between finite and infinity cardinalities is striking if we force ourselves to be more rigorous in the way we dissect an object to obtain parts.  More specifically count nouns partake of finite cardinalities whilst mass nouns have the properties of the the cardinality of the continuum (more than the merely infinite countable). We associate the continuum with the Aristotelic and Platonic apeiron and with hule.  Mass nouns are generally matter.  Recall that a line has the cardinality of the continuum. If we take a standard 'part' of the line then this part (let us a say a interval) still has the cardinality of the continuum.  That is, all open sets of the topology of the real line have the same cardinality $\aleph_1$. We can also think of a counting sheaf on the category of open sets of space $X$. $\epsilon_0$, the well-ordering of the continuum, can be visualized as fractal or crystal.

If we allow fusions into UDIL2 so that some elements of $D_{-1}$ represent pluralities then are we forced to have elements of $D_{-1}$ representing at least all finite sets ? What about the cardinality of $I$ with which $H_{-1}$ is defined ?