but if the thing can be interacted with, it can usually be mapped and defined and then named. But there will always be things which do not have names, at least in mathematics -- think of the real numbers.
There are some that unnameable with my mathematical understanding, but that's not saying much.
On the other hand, given any real number, I can name it. I'll run out of unique names, since no injective function exists from real numbers to names.
So, some unnamed real numbers will always remain (non-constructively), I can make real numbers that escape a naming scheme (constructively), and no unnameable real numbers exist.
Assigning a symbol? But who said that the set of symbols must be countable?
This reminds me of a YouTube video I watched this week titled "A counting argument for why mind comes before matter": https://youtu.be/AtduNjJV-6E?is=nBZ9ztZsyeoVhCj1
The argument is something like the set of possible thoughts about physical objects is larger than the physical objects themselves. It feels similar in flavor to the idea of unameable objects.
There's something special about a name. The name of the God of the Bible is special. Christians are to call upon _the name_ of the Lord. We pray, hallowed by _thy name_. It is somehow denotes the summary essence of the thing being named, even if it doesn't give specific details of its characteristics.
https://youtu.be/aVwxzDHniEw?si=tPPRId1y5L7U2_5L
Name_I = a*lambda + b (1-lambda)
lamda is a real number.