Wow, did you read my comment carefully at all? This is what I said: > This is not to deny that there is an objective reality... So I do agree that object real

Wow, did you read my comment carefully at all? This is what I said: > This is not to deny that there is an objective reality... So I do agree that object reality exists, contrary to what you imply in your response. However, there is no word in human language that has an objective definition. If you think this is so, maybe you have not thought or read enough about the subject. On the subject of equality, you said: > Your example of equality already demonstrates you understand equality's objective definition: you implicitly operate on the notion that "equality" means some form of equivalence, some ability to substitute B for C in a specific context that results in no observable/expressible change. You're making my point. Consider the vagueness of what you have written: "...some form of equivalence, some ability to substitute B for C in a specific context that results in no observable/expressible change." That doesn't sound very rigorous to me, and in fact I could argue this is not what I understand by "equality" at all. Now you could make the point the definition can be made rigorous for a very specific context, but this is still not 100% possible. To show this, you can attempt to give me a specific definition of equality of a specific context, and I will show that it still admits of multiple possible meanings.