Dick,

***If you wish to continue this conversation, please tell me if you will accept [reality is "something A" and that I am only interested in ("something A")’s which are communicable] as a rational starting point. All that is required is a simple yes or no. If your answer is "no" then it would appear to me that we have nothing more to discuss.***

No. Just for the sake of clarifying the reasons:

1) I cannot accept that reality is a set of numbers. Numbers are human concepts requiring humans to think about them.

2) I cannot accept that reality must be communicable, therefore 'something A' may be incommunicable and unknowable making your effort meaningless.

3) I cannot accept that reality equates to 'something A' when in fact all we could say (having all knowledge) is that reality is approximately 'something A'.

4) I cannot accept that anything that is communicable is in any way useful to describing the way reality is.

I wish we could get beyond this very basic step, but we just have very different approaches to study the nature of the reality. I see it as a process of using our best tools to make reasonable opinions (i.e., with the hope that reality is how it appears), whereas I get the feeling that you see reality as limited to being communicable, restricted to mathematical logic, as being a set of numbers versus only represented by numbers, being exactly defined by you versus only approximated, and as being limited by your model. These are all just so unacceptable that I can't even begin to look the other way.

It was fun though...

Take care, Harv