You really should take more time to think things out!
Harv: Okay, I have a better understanding of what you are talking about. How about if we revise (6) as follows:
***6. It is possible to label all 'things' with a number if we can identify those 'things' for discussion. 'Dead horses' are excluded.
I still prefer "***6. It is possible to label all of these "things" with numbers.***"
First, why should "dead horses" be excluded. You have apparently misunderstood my reference. My reference was to the issues you keep bringing up which I already understand (it is very possible that I don't communicate that fact well as I don't think it is worth the time many devote to it).
And second, the statement you make limits the analysis to whoever is referred to by "we". That limit is not required by my perspective. If this "thing" has ever been referred to or can ever be referred to then a number can be attached to it. Reference itself is completely equivalent to "attaching a number".
The "things" I am referring to either actually exist as part of "Ultimate Reality" or can be thought to exist (a rather open category), I am merely moving the problem of "language" into an abstract form so that we can avoid the problems inherent in its use (problems you seem to have a clear concept of). If you prefer to talk about things which cannot be referred to then you need to return to the "god and science forum" and join the rest of the riff raff; that is exactly the kind of thinking which really turns them on.
Have fun -- Dick