Not that far from the underlying reason why I asked the question.

It isn't really that clear where RJH is trying to get with his line of argument. He appears to be claiming that you can't unambiguously define the universe. (I would argue that you can define the universe to the extent sufficently unambiguously for our purposes in the context of physics, and would like to be given an example of where it is insufficient.) If you can't define it unambiguously, then he seems to suggest that the concept of the universe isn't meaningful.

If he can't define Richard J Hanak (and you are right, in that my earlier post indicates what I mean in an operational sense by putting in the context of the madman with the sledgehammer ) in an unambiguous fashion, that can't be pulled apart using the techniques that he applies to the concept of the universe, then by his reasoning RJH isn't a meaningful concept either. I suspect that RJH does believe himself to be a meaningful concept (after all, why should we be interested in the writings of a meaningless concept ), and hence he may wish to reconsider his position on the concept of the universe.