 All right, so you're rejecting permitting these premises, right? Rejecting this conclusion. So you have to reject one of the premises, which means you are committed on pain of your rationality to one of the, one of the, one of the contradictory other premises. Okay. So the first one we look at is this that we can coherently say there are multiple objects, but we cannot coherently say there are at least two things. Well, this one is a logical contradiction. Right? So as we, we can coherently say there's multiple things, but not at least two. Well, we can't have at least two of them. We can't have three, four, five, six, and the rest. Right? And if we can't have any multiplicity, well, we, we can't have multiples. So this, rejecting this premise results in a logical contradiction. All right. Now we're trying to say we can coherently say there are at least two things, but we can't coherently say they are not fused together. Well, if there's two things, how can there be something other than not fused together? Right? If, I mean, that would be like saying all this stuff, right? All the trees, the grass, the air, the water, me, it's all fused together. It's all one part of one mass, but multiple. This is also probably a logical contradiction. We just understand things as being distinct in virtue of them not being fused. Right? Now, even right now, right, you are not fused to your clothes, right? Your skin and your clothes are not part of the same mass. They're distinct. They're distinct. They're not fused together. Um, you know, think about this, I think about a pineapple, right? So you, when you look at a pineapple, you don't think, ah, there's a bunch of fruits. You think there's one fruit there, hence a pineapple, right? You don't point at a single one and say those pineapples. No, you think it's one fruit. Well, it is, right? It is one fruit, but, you know, you may or may not be aware of this, but pineapples don't start out as one fruit. They start out as a bunch of separate fruits and then they fuse together. Now, in virtue of being fused together, right, it becomes one pineapple. So to say that we can't coherently say that there's multiple objects, but we can't coherently say they are not fused together, this is also probably a logical contradiction, because we just understand division between multiple things as not being fused, right? They're not of one mass, they're of a bunch of different masses, distinct masses. All right, so this one we're saying we can coherently say that these objects, so the trees, the grass, all that, they're not fused together, but we can't coherently say that there's a space where something does not exist, right? So, you know, if we say this, if we endorse this contradictory to the premise, what we're saying is, well, with all these things, right, there's still something between them, right? There's no space of emptiness, there's always something, right? So, you know, right now I've got, you can see a little bit of tree here. There's something here between us. Now, today we're like, oh yeah, I mean there's air, we're like, oh, okay, there's air, that's true. But air molecules are a lot further apart from each other than, you know, the molecules that compose this tree, right? And, you know, even if we're going to say, fine, that that's air, we're not, you know, we saw the issue, okay, cool. But there's plenty of, plenty of the best of the physical sciences that describe nothingness between objects, right? We call it space, right? We call it space. Space is the emptiness between planets and moons and stars and commons and everything else. There's, you know, okay, there's some little bits here. There's, you know, okay, there's some little bits here and there. Something's true, right? There's space dust, but there's lots of emptiness with that space dust. And we can go further with other examples of physics. You know, the subatomic particles, protons, neutrons, electrons, there's lots of emptiness within an atom itself. So, but if we say that, you know, we can't go here and they say there's a space or something that does not exist. But, you know, for any two objects, there's always something that exists, right? They're right up next to each other. There's no emptiness between them. Now, you know, in case you didn't know, people took this notion very seriously for a long time. And even in the physical sciences, in the physical sciences, they called it ether, right? Ether is what existed between objects. It was a substance. I mean, it was an existing thing. It was a substance that existed between objects. So there's this ether between my hand and the plant. And ether is also the medium for sound and for light. Okay. Well, ether was rejected as an existing thing when they tried to, you know, really seriously look for it. It wasn't just a theoretical construct. You know, they went looking for it and trying to measure ether. I think it was called the Mickelson-Morley experiment, the Mickelson-Morley experiment. And the, you know, what happened with this experiment is they were trying to find ether. Well, they couldn't do it. They couldn't find ether with this experiment. And this was in 1887. So ether, this thing that exists between objects, right, was rejected pretty late in the game, right? In 1887, that's not too long ago when that happened. So if you're going to endorse this contradictory to the premise, you're going to have to show, you have to explain, what this thing is that's between objects because, you know, so far they haven't been able to find it. So you have to reject the best that the physical sciences have to offer. Okay. So for this one, we say, well, we can currently say there's a space where something does not exist. Right? So here, here's the space. There's nothing in it, right? My hands are hating it. You might say, well, we do this all the time. What's the problem, Dr. Haugen? Come on. And when we talk about space as a void, as a nothingness, it's what, you know, between planets, there's nothingness. There's space. Okay. Well, I suppose you could try to do this, but you're going to run into some problems. So even just take the phrase, something does not exist. What does that mean? You know, the word something, what does that mean? Right? Something is a word that means, well, there's a thing there that exists. So when we say something does not exist, we're saying there's a thing there that exists that does not exist. I mean, that's a direct logical contradiction, right? It rejects itself. It says it, you know, it is it, you know, it, that proposition itself says it's false, right? So even just trying to put together the phrase something does not exist is a self-a-logical contradiction. And it's the only way that we can do it. I mean, think of it this way. Okay. In any sentence where you're going to talk about nothing, right? Any time we try to talk about nothing, you're running into deep conceptual problems right from the get-go. Every sentence that deals with what's true or false is called a declarative sentence, right? And it's your simple statements like, there is a tree. There is another tree. It is sunny today. It is breezy today. All right. The weather is breezy. The weather is sunny, right? These are all declarative sentences. Every last declarative sentence, regardless of what language you're dealing with, has a subject and a predicate. A subject is what is described? A predicate is describing. Can we use nothing as either a subject or a predicate? Well, if we say it's a subject, then we're saying, right, nothing can be described. How? You can't describe nothing. It doesn't exist, right? There's nothing. It doesn't have a color. It doesn't have a scent. It doesn't have a touch, right? It doesn't take up space. How many nothings are around me right now? One? Nineteen? Forty-eight billion? So nothing cannot be a subject. How about a predicate? Can you describe something as nothing? So, hey, here's a tree. Let's describe it with nothing. No, that ain't going to work either, right? You can't use nothing as a description. So nothing cannot be either a subject or a predicate, which means it can't be included in a declarative sentence. No sentence that deals with what's true or what's false can coherently deal with nothing. I mean, just take the different kinds of words that are out there, a noun. Can nothing be a noun? Well, what kind of word is a noun? A noun is a person, place, a thing. And of which of those is nothing? How about an adjective? An adjective is described, right? Green, warm, breezy, right? These are all adjectives. Can you describe something with nothing? Can nothing be an adjective? No, it doesn't describe anything. How about a verb? What did you do today? I did nothing. I realize your average teenager says that, but, you know, it's impossible to do nothing, literally. I mean, even if you're just lying there, you are breathing, your heart is beating, right? Yeah, there is nothing in the universe. Listen to the inherent contradiction, right? There's nothing in the universe that does nothing. Everything is doing something. Everything is doing something. So, to say that you can coherently talk about nothing, you've got to overcome some serious hurdles. You've got to somehow make it coherent within a declarative sentence. It's got to make sense as a proper part of speech, as either a noun or a verb or an adverb. This can't be done. Every time we talk about nothing, it's incoherent. It's illogical. Well, you might say, oh, okay, that's some fancy grammar play, Dr. Halgo. But as a matter of fact, we do talk about nothing all the time. We talk about it in cosmology when we're dealing with planets and moons and stars. We're talking about space. And space is a nothing. That's nothingness, is it? I mean, when we talk about... Look up your definition of space. They don't... I did a quick search. Hardly any website describes it merely as a nothing, right? They call it the space, or excuse me, they call it as an expanse or dimension, right? Expanses and dimensions, these are some things, right? These are things that, I'm guessing, are some kind of reality, right? But if we overcome that hurdle, it's not as if space is inert. What happens to space in the gravity field? Every last object that has mass exerts a gravitational field. And this is how they talk about space, right? They say, if you look this up, gravity bends space. I've seen these, like, diagrams. You have, like, a black hole right here, you have a black hole. And then you have this diagram showing this dip. They call it gravity well, right? That sort of thing. That gravity, especially extreme gravity, like in a black hole or a planet, right? Our planet exerts a pretty heavy gravitational field. So does our sun, right? It bends space. Okay. Gravity bends space. Can you bend nothing? Well, here, let's try. Okay, I'm going to grab some nothing here. I'm going to grab some nothing here. Look at that. I bent nothing. Boy, that was hard. You can't bend nothing. So space, whatever it is, right? It's still not a nothing. And if it's not a nothing, it's a something. So even in that case, we can't coherently talk about nothing. And, you know, I've just got finished mentioning ether a minute ago. It kind of looks like we haven't completely given up on ether either, right? Because if nothing, if space can be bent, it's a something. And it's between all objects. I don't think we entirely gave up on ether. I think we just started calling up a different name and changed some of its properties. All right, now we have this one which says, perception reliably gives us the truth about multiple objects, but we can't coherently say there are multiple objects. So I look around, right? I look around and perception reliably tells me about multiplicity, but I can't talk about it. I mean, this isn't strictly speaking a logical contradiction, right? It's not saying perception reliably gives the truth and it does not reliably give the truth, right? That would be a logical contradiction. Now it says perception reliably gives the truth. I just can't talk about it, not coherently anyway. And that's a really weird statement, right? I know the truth, but I'm not going to tell you. Now I suppose you can go this way if you like, because it's not a logical contradiction and maybe now you get to keep at least beliefs about multiplicity, but you can't talk about multiplicity anymore. And by the way, if you can't talk about multiplicity, if you can't talk about the vision between objects, I look here and I see at least 10 trees. If you can't talk about multiplicity, goodbye physical sciences. We can't do physical sciences anymore because we need the ability to talk about multiple things and the physical sciences.