It seems the guy hasn't heard of the googolplex. To give an example, the observable universe has fewer particles in it than a googolplex. Even if we get to its volume represented by planck lengths, theoretically the smallest measurable length possible, the known universe has fewer planck "boxes" in its volume than there are numbers in a googolplex. And then there's
Graham's number, which makes even a googolplex look infinitesimally small. So no, not all numbers have to fit in the universe, and if we look at the gap between a googolplex and Graham's number we find that far more numbers
don't fit in the universe than do.
I don't even have to look at that article to tell he's an idiot. If one's brain being "everywhere" means that we can extend our consciousness beyond our physical bodies, then there is evidence of that. It doesn't go everywhere though. And negative, infinite, and infinitely negative numbers do exist. Antimatter, for example, can't be created without negative numbers.
And now for something completely different:
