The "somethings" can be seen as called into existence by some other something (as in a government by the people, or a universe mocked up by beings) or seen as generated from nothing (a mysterious "Big Bang"). It seems clear that beyond all somethings is the fringe of existence itself, and that beyond that fringe lies only "pure" consciousness, not "consciousness of".
Two somethings, laced into interaction by consideration, can make up an enduring compound.
An entire spectrum of phenomena (for example, "Becoming more aware") can be brought into view by the calling up of a single something (the belief one is/has unawarenesses).
The number and nature of these different somethings are as many as can be, and their combinations as complex as one cares to imagine possible. But it is a good bet that there will never be found a barrier, condition, experience, or particle beyond the spectrum of somethings. If there is it isn't a functional consideration at this point.
The number and nature of the Nothing does not exist. The idea of "numbers of beings" is contradictory, given the definitions involved. Granted, it is a persistent idea, because of a semantic doublecross involving calling people beings, when perhaps they are not. Perhaps what we think of as a "person" is a massively focused and tightly-wound tip of an infinite amount of Beingness filtered through mountains of granite beliefs.
People are byproducts, somethings. If they ceased to be something, and became Zero or nothings, fully, what would account for any separation between them?
Well, what do you call an unseparated fullness of Nothing? God is one word, burdened with a lot of semantic distortions. There may be others, but it seems likely that no word could carry the substance of that territory with much accuracy.
The paths that lead beyond all somethings may be few. At the end of any path that really does so, on the raw ground of consciousnessexperienced, there is a simple end to the quest.
There is no more carrot. Like the Buddha under his tree, the only choice is to be or not to be something again; except one wonders how he managed to be under a tree if he had honestly reached that state.
There's more beyond, perhaps. Nothing is relative to nothing. Or are they?