It is good to be home. Our last night away, my wife said that she had about all the fun she could stand. We were at a marriage and were required to attend all the various functions (the only thing we got out of was a bar party after the rehearsal dinner Friday night and I am so glad we didn't get pulled into that - it apparently lasted until the bar closed). That kind of stuff is a bit of a strain on old people!
As far as being needlessly cavil, you ought to think these things out a little more.
Harv: a) When you say that 'can be' as in (6) and (7), who is it that can do this? How do you know this 'can be' done? For example, how do you know that 'Ultimate Reality' is constituted by 'things', and therefore how do you know this labeling can be accomplished?
I, for one, can do it and I am sure that, if you thought about it for a moment, so could you!
Example: --#6 Ok, so I label everything with the number symbol 24! I can now refer to anything with the number 24! I have done what #6 says I can do!
regarding #7, unless I just happen to know "Ultimate Reality" exactly, not all those "24's" above can be referring to "portions" of "Ultimate Reality" so the set that does must be unknown! Furthermore, if I don't tell you I labeled things that way, 24 itself is an unknown number from your perspective.
If I were immortal, I could easily explicitly describe more ways of performing such a labeling then could be written down in a billion years.
I think the real problem here is that you do not understand the purpose of my labeling. All I am saying in my listed points is that such a labeling can be performed. I am saying absolutely nothing about the procedure used to create those labels; and that is the important issue!
Harv: For example, how do you know that 'Ultimate Reality' is constituted by 'things', and therefore how do you know this labeling can be accomplished?
I think I have mentioned many times that I am only using the English language as a vague rudder to steer your thoughts. During that conversation, I stated explicitly that I would accept any meaning to the word "thing" so long as anything (i.e., any - thing) which can be referred to is a member of that set. You just referred to "Ultimate Reality" therefore it is a member of the set of "things" referred to in my statements.
Harv: how can we know if 'Ultimate Reality' cannot be broken into separate referencable things?
We do not know it cannot be and that case must also be included in the analysis! That is the reason that I refer to the set of numbers as "unknown".
If, someday, a language is invented which allows specific references to those assorted things, then whatever symbols are used to reference those things can be mapped into a set of numbers by whoever understood those references. Again, I will point out that they will be able to do this as they can simply use the label 24 just as I did above. I am not saying a thing about what these labels mean (that is in the head of whoever did the labeling) all I am saying is that anything which may be referred to can be labeled with a number.
You seem to have a very strong compulsion to read more into what I am saying than I am actually saying.
Have fun -- Dick