 So you're saying all defined objects can be explained by or you are defined composed of something and There's not something that they all have in common Okay, how would this work? Would it be what? Say here here. Let's say we have this circle here All right, and in this circle are all defined things in existence right and it Since we're rejecting the infinite anything outside the circle doesn't exist Everything that inside the circle is what is not only what exists, but it's all defined objects So we say that not all defined objects have something in common But there's always something that does that does the job of defining those like okay. Well How would this work well suppose we say we have this object X this kind of thing X and X's are composed of Y's Okay, so far so good But we can't say that everything has Y in common right we got X's that composed of Y's But we can't say everything has Y in common. So Y has to have something else right that it has well maybe a Z right so Z's You know is what composes or does the job of X? But you know we can't say everything is you know Z Because it's that you're not everything you know not everything has something in common well then so Z's are composed of X's and And now you have everything is defined or composed by something But there's not one thing that composes all other things because X is composed of Y's and Y's are composed of Z's and Z's are composed of X's Is that gonna do it? Probably not It's very at least trying to explain that or make coherent sense of that will be difficult or will be difficult So Well, let's scratch that one. Let's try something else suppose. Yeah, you give me have our circle here with all to find things Well, we have our defined objects right X's and they're composed of Y's But we don't want to say that there's one thing that they all have it So it has to be composed of something else when maybe a Z's And then those are composed of something else whatever we want to call it. Maybe call them A's They go those are composed of B's and those so the idea is that there's an infinite regression down of composition I Suppose you can go that way right because then what we say well We got all these objects here around us and they're all composed of atoms and atoms are composed of protons neutrons and electrons and Protons neutrons electrons are composed of quarks and quarks are composed of strings and strings are composed of Bits and bits are composed of box and bops are composed of groups and groups are composed of gifts And you just keep going on down in infinite regression. Oh, then that means that for any given object You have an infinite number of objects And I suppose you could do that if you like But again that That that would be a very difficult pill to swallow I mean you could try to do this I suppose in at least in a variety of different ways But however way you do it since you're saying that there's not something that everything has in common You have now just given up on Thaley's project to begin with right Thaley's started out this whole project Which Annex man is trying to respond to by saying everything around us has some kind of commonality And If you give up on Thaley's project you give up on the main motivation behind contemporary physics Behind our understanding of what it means to comprehend all this or any of physicists are act actively after What's called the theory of everything? That's commonality for all things So if you if you go this way if you reject this premise and you're committed to its contradictory You have now rejected The basic motivation behind contemporary physics All right, so we've got This we're dealing with this commitment here at there's something that all defined objects haven't come so all these all these things Has one thing in common and it is One of these defined things Wow, okay. Well, how would this work right? This is what an experimenter tried to do to begin with this is part of his thought experiment was how to make even trying to make sense of this So what do we say today? We say well all these are composed of atoms Annex minute says great. What are atoms and Then we say well, you know that they're protons. They're composed of protons neutrons and electrons Annex minute says, okay, great. What are protons neutrons and electrons? It's like well, okay a Proton is a positively charged particle and electron is a negatively charged particle a neutron is a particle with no charge Annex minute says, okay, but you're getting more and more kinds of things now, aren't you? By the way, what is it? So now we've got a charge and a particle and particle of what is that a particle of sand? Particle of water with what sort of particle of well, it's a particle. That doesn't help a particle of what? You know, we keep going on in this is where I lose a little bit of my grasp of particle physics But I believe the next step down is quarks and there's something like 23 different kinds of quarks something like that and Then oh Annex minute says, okay, cool. I've never heard of a quark, but sure fine. What's a quark? You kind of get the feeling here that Annex man is like, I don't know. I think you just make it up names at this point Well, then the next step down I believe from quarks is strings So strings are one dimensional objects looped in four dimensions of space depending on how they vibrate You get different kinds of quarks depending on your different combinations of quarks or different kinds of quarks You get your protons neutrons electrons depending on your protons neutrons electrons you get different kind of atoms Depending on the different kinds of atoms you get different substances depending on a combination of substances Right, you get these different objects And Annex man says great a string of what is It cotton And and really, you know, we say one dimensional string that means that it has no width It only has length Which as far as I know only happens in a geometry textbook Right, it's a one-dimensional string. It's a direction. Is that what that is? So You know, you start breaking this down more and more and Annex man says, I don't even know what this is anymore I don't know what a one-dimensional object is and I don't think you really do either and Really trying to explain it takes quite a bit of work But you suppose you just suppose you make sense of strings It's like cool strings of what points Are there segments to strings are there threads of string threads of what? Because we've left behind this stuff a long time ago But you keep you keep going down with it whatever name you want to come up with We've got strings. We got garbables. We've got garbables got perplexits. We got perplexits We got gobbles and just keep going down Smaller and smaller. I mean really you keep this up. You're going to wind up with points, right? Not one-dimensional object, but zero-dimensional objects To which Annex man is going to say great points of what? So taking this approach It has has some real difficulties. I mean either right you Are defining these things in terms of two other things right pro atoms are composed of protons neutrons electrons We got three kinds of things now Quarks, I think it's like in like 23 strings lots of different kinds of strings depending on upon the vibration Uh, so you can define in terms of at least two other things with that there goes the unity Right because all this is supposed to be unified by one thing according to Thales, right? This is the whole insight that Thales started with or you just You know say well It's a quark and a quark is a string and a string is you just start infinitely regressing on down All right, and and then either that thing I think you stop at some point and say well, it's it's a google What's a google it has no definition Wow, come on I don't even know what that is and neither do you by your own description. It has no definition Or you keep trying to define and you keep defining all the way down and Yeah, uh neither approach really does much of anything So I suppose you could try this but either you're never going to finish Or it's going to end in something that you can't tell us what it is And other results sounds very good So we're saying there's something that is not one of the defined objects And that thing has boundaries of definitions. Well How's that supposed to work? I mean, so here's say we have this circle here Right and inside the circle this represents all defined things And since we are rejecting annex your manager's conclusion anything outside the circle doesn't exist Uh, we're saying the only thing that exists is is to find stuff Okay, cool Uh, but there's something that is not one of The defined things so it's outside the circle It's not defined But it also has boundaries or definition Wait, how can something be both defined and not defined? Right, it can't This option sometimes when you reject a proposition it results in a logical contradiction, right? Or a self contradiction And this is one of those cases. This is logically impossible. Something is both defined and not defined Right, uh, it both has an attribute and it doesn't have the attribute So with this option this option results in a logical contradiction Uh, you really just can't take this approach and still be rational Okay, so we say well, not all the fine things can be explained All right, or yeah Okay, in other words, you just have to stop at some point Well, I guess you can do that That's a choice But then you just kind of giving up at some point. I suppose you say well, all this is atoms and all atoms are composed of protons neutrons electrons and Let's just stop there We don't need to go any further. We know those positively charged particles, negatively charged particles and Particles with no charge. That's a proton neutron electron. Ah, let's just stop there I again, I suppose you can do that if you like, but again, you're you're you're basically stopping progress in the physical sciences like, ah, let's just stop You're giving up on the project of the physical sciences And since you you likely decided to adopt or excuse me, you likely decided to reject an examanus conclusion because you're In favor of something like progress in the 21st century physics. That would be kind of strange I believe in physics, but let's just go ahead and stop it here. Yeah All right, that that's probably a really bad idea. I mean you could do it if you like But it it good luck justifying that one So you're rejecting an examanus's conclusion And go on piece by piece to the premises So the first top you make is or maybe if you're trying to say, well, there's something without boundaries or definition That explains all the fine things and it's comprehensible. I'd like to see you try Uh, we buy the very description of what you're given. It's out there. It has no boundaries. It's Indefined. It's indefinable, but I get it That's a lot like saying you understand all numbers at once In their entirety You perceive the entire number a lot. No, you don't Nobody does Just try to picture the boundless. We've gone through this before try to picture the boundless You're not picturing the boundless you're picturing some defined thing Probably clouds or stars or something like that every bit of your knowledge every last thing that you understand and can communicate Has boundaries has definition colors numbers objects textures feelings thoughts Every thought you have is finite and the number of thoughts that you have is finite Your head literally isn't big enough to contain the infinite And we would barely have any words to describe Limitlessness Without using first a limited thing and then modifying it so infinite All right, I got that in is the negation of finite. It's not finite You ever try some assertion link length or vastness ever vast But you were still modifying a finite verb to describe But we don't even have a single word that means in and of itself this boundless sort of thing At least not in English so But even per the impossible and I'm still gonna say you if you think you understand the infinite And it has no boundaries of definition Even if you think you understand it There's no way you can talk about it because it doesn't have boundaries of definitions that you can literally not describe it at all to anybody Because every description you have is going to use a word That's finite, right And on top of that the many you start trying to describe it you've given it boundaries or definition So this option I mean you can try I suppose but probably not going to succeed if you really want to go for this fine Notice this isn't so much. You know, if you really want to go for this fine, but you know I'm going to challenge you to tell me about it and then you will immediately Fail because in the attempt to tell me about it you've given definition But not to mention the fact that in just simply going this path. We haven't Rejected necessarily that an X-amendance has to say this just is the assertion of the boundless and that it can do the job that it can do Right, this is begging the question. It's assuming the conclusion against an X-amendance. It's not Proving anything against an X-amendance's conclusion So it's got two severe problems one you probably can't Comprehend the infinite and the many you try right it's no longer the infinite and two Yeah, this isn't evidence against an an X-amendance's conclusion. It's just the presumption against it So you're trying to say that something is incomprehensible and yet it can explain how Or you know, it's incomprehensible and it can define How I I'm wondering what's gonna do the job here I have figured it all out. I have figured out the answer to the question of what exists really. Wow. What is it? It's curplex it cool. What's curplex it? I don't know, but that's the answer Yeah, that's probably not gonna work Again, if you think you could do this, I guess give it a shot I'd like to see you try But if you do this you're saying I figured out the answer. I don't understand it. Nobody ever can but this is it All right, all right with this contradictory you're saying there's something without boundaries of definitions That explains all defined objects But it cannot explain Wait, what? Here we have a direct contradiction even within the situation even within the proposition, right? It says it can explain And it cannot explain Okay, well, that that's a direct contradiction Now, maybe you want to say well, it can't explain in one way, but it can't explain another sick. Well, they know that's not That's not the proposition, right? And saying it cannot explain you're saying can't explain period So if you want to change it to say well, it can't cannot it can't explain in one way But it can't explain in another you've changed the proposition. You're just trying to go for something else And I guess that's fine, but you're not rejecting a premise that annexed menace has given us So this premise rejecting this premise Results in a logical contradiction. Uh, it's impossible Well, I picked a really good spot to shoot video today So at this point you might be a little frustrated and say well, what's the right answer? Let me it's one of these Right, it's one of these. Um, in fact, you know these these two answers are contrary either everything's composed of the finite Or everything's composed of the infinite they're contrary. They're also contradictory They both can't be true and they both can't be false So it's I mean, it's one of these answers, right? I didn't say that The answer the truth would be easy and I didn't say the truth would be you know problem-free so to speak Either approach has this difficulty Right, whether you think everything's composed of the infinite or composed of the finite either approach has this difficulty and Okay You can go either way. I guess that's your choice right uh Well, let's not pretend that whichever way you go Is problem-free Right, there's gonna have to be some price or something you're gonna have to answer or explain All right, especially the other people who disagree with you and your task Then if you're gonna try to answer the question, what does it mean to exist? All right, and if you're gonna in answering that question you're gonna appeal to composition, right your task is to Not only pay that price, but to somehow justify it to provide evidence one way or the other Even explain how you can Make sense of the conclusions of the consequences of your beliefs