These are my philosophical speculations.
I would speculate that words never correspond to any objects in the world.
And that the objects that exist in the world are also not simple.
These objects are multi-dimensional volumes of multi-dimensional vector fields.
These can hypothetically be described but not named – they never recur.
What we ordinarily call objects are patterns that persist within these objects.
Our experience of ordinary objects are objects. (real – not ordinary ones).
Also we learn to associate our experiences of words with our experiences of these objects.
The words themselves are another sort of ordinary objects.
Thus a correspondence is set up:
|“ordinary object”||object||object||“ordinary object”|
|noun||experience of noun||experience of object||object|
|verb||experience of verb||experience of relation||relation|
These can be used as in predicate logic.
But really there are just the objects described by vector fields (arrangements of real numbers).
The laws are differential equations – not laws of logic.
Taking the nouns and verbs as corresponding to reality is natural (it is almost the only way we can think), but wrong.
Many problems of philosophy are caused by taking nouns and verbs as standing for real things. The only real things are vector fields (of which our experiences are examples).
However if we recognize the limits of language we can avoid these confusions & language (also logic) is extremely useful.