***You have already made it very clear that you do not understand what I am saying in my paper. I will take complete responsibility for that.***
No, we aren't at the point where I'm supposed to understand what you are trying to say. We are at that point to where you make a couple of assumptions and make a statement of something being true by definition. It is a very simple start and I contest that you defined something that is true by definition. Nothing to misunderstand. Something is either true by definition or it isn't.
***I am trying to explain my thoughts concerning the abstract problem of trying to explain what I know. When I say "abstract" I mean that, whatever statements I make, they must be applicable to any possibility.***
It's not relevant to the definition of reality which is what we've just been discussing. The only relevant issue (here) is whether you have introduced a term that is true by definition. You didn't define 'numbers', but I cannot see how you can use numbers without reference to human beings. You reject that, and this is the issue up for discussion.
***That being the case, all three components may be represented by numbers attached to the associated concepts.***
Okay, what do you mean by a number? Are you talking about those human concepts that are mental objects?
***For a significant period of time, I have been trying to get you to admit that this is a rational starting point.***
Let's start with your first assumption and first definition. Your first assumption is that it is acceptable to use mathematics, and you are restricting yourself to assumptions that are true by definition. How more basic can we get? I have a dispute here, so this seems like a perfect place to continue the discussion until we come to a resolution. I don't see a need to switch the subject and allow a contradiction to fester. These contradictions should be dealt with otherwise you'll never see what is wrong with the premises and subsequent conclusions of your paper.
***Again, I ask you if you can conceive of any communicable solution to explaining the universe which cannot be viewed from the perspective I have just presented: i.e., "something A" transformed by our "senses" into "something B". The actual material definitions (assignments of meanings to those presumed concepts) being left entirely open.***
As I've said, you can't use analytical systems (e.g., mathematics) to find ampliative conclusions unless you interpret the results to physical world. The interpretation is where you are mistaken. The first step, though, is analyzing your assumptions and definitions. Otherwise every communication that follows is meaningless. That is, if we can't agree on your assumptions and definitions as valid, then how can we agree on the contents of your paper?
***So far, every time I have asked you that question, you have avoided answering it by bringing up some issue totally off the subject.***
Because the question is currently unanswerable. It is like asking if I can conceive of any communicable explanation of the universe that can't be modelled using a computer. To show that that a communicable explanation cannot be modelled using a computer we would need to demonstrate inherent limitations of computer modelling as they apply to communicable explanations. However, we have no way of knowing what those limitations are. It is possible that some human communicable concepts cannot be modelled by a computer (e.g., human feelings that are communicated throught the eyes of people who love each other, or between the eyes of a mother and her young child, etc), but we would need to quantify the communication to know whether that information could be modelled by a computer. A large part of the problem is that we can't quantify this communicable information, so we can't be sure it exists. Maybe it is merely subjective 'information' that is really not occurring (i.e., we are merely interpreting information as we see it not as if a message is really being transmitted that needs us to intercept and understand the contents of that message). Yet, some people think they are really communicating a message that can't be modelled, it can only be received 'as is'. Your model would perhaps (?) fail with that kind of data.
Warm regards, Harv