Alright, then let me take the abstractionist's viewpoint, which is where this all needs to be anyway.
Mathematics helps us understand things that do not appear in nature; zero may be one of those, but I am not convinced of that. It is rather easy for me to look at a blank desktop and say that there is no pen there. Zero pens present.
Similarly- space. Though, on the average, there is matter occupying all of space, I can mind-experiment myself down to a small enough volume that contains no atom.
Zero requires us to recognize that the absence of something is a thing in and of itself. And there are plenty of abstractions that one deals with on a daily basis; one instance would be color. There is no such thing as
color in the world- just wavelengths of light/photonic energy. We make an abstract interpretation in the mind about that (and people will not even agree on the interpretation of a particular wavelength).
Zero doesn’t have to exist to be useful and we can use the concept of zero to derive all the other numbers in the universe.
John von Neumann's thought was this:
Imagine a box with nothing in it. Mathematicians call this empty box “the empty set” and is a physical representation of zero. What objects are inside the empty box? None/nothing.
Now take another empty box, and place it in the first one.
How many things are in the first box now? There’s one object in it.
Then, put another empty box inside the first two. How many objects does it contain now? Two. That can be how we derive all the counting numbers from zero … from nothing. This is the basis of our number system. Zero is an abstraction and a reality at the same time.
Also, don't forget about the reality of "absence" in digital engineering!
(you triggered my mathematician and philosopher's proclivities, sorry

)