 Okay, so you're trying to reject the permittivity's conclusion that there's no change. And to do that, you have to reject one of the premises, which means you're logically committed to one of those contradictories. One of the contradictories of the premises. Okay, so let's take this one. Let's take the first one. We can coherently say that something changes into something else, but we cannot coherently say that one thing exists and then another exists. Okay, so if you want to go this way, it kind of looks like a logical contradiction. Consider this ice cube. We have an ice cube. And ice melts into water. First ice exists, then water exists. Ice turns into liquid water. Okay, well, if you want to say that, you have to be able to say that one thing exists and then another exists, namely that ice exists and then water exists. So it looks like this is a logical contradiction. Now you might say, well, look, Dr. Haugen, hold on a second. Let's not be so quick. We know, after all, that ice and liquid water are really the same thing. They're composed of dihydrogen monoxide. So what happens with ice is that it's dihydrogen monoxide, molecules of dihydrogen monoxide, in a certain pattern. It's like, again, I'm not much of a chemist. So I believe it's a crystalline pattern, a crystalline structure. And the more it heats up, right, that structure breaks apart, and then it becomes more viscous, and that's when you have liquid water. Okay, I suppose you could do this if you like. So what is there is dihydrogen monoxide in a certain pattern. All right, I mean, I suppose you could try. But now, you no longer have ice and then water. What you have is dihydrogen monoxide. And if you say what the thing is, are the molecules, ice doesn't exist anymore, just dihydrogen monoxide in a certain pattern, and the same thing with water. So really, you've even left behind this approach, right? You're not saying that something exists and then another exists. What you're saying is there's always dihydrogen monoxide there. It just looks different. I mean, again, I guess you could do this. But by the way, you have now rejected your own existence. If all that exists are the molecules and the atoms, you don't exist. You're just atoms. What you think is there is really just a collection of atoms in a certain pattern. And again, I suppose it can go this way. But now you've rejected your own existence and the existence of ice and trees and grass and everything else. Okay, now with this one, right, we're saying we can't coherently say that one thing exists and then another exists. But we can't coherently say that one thing ceases to exist and another starts to exist. Well, this is a logical contradiction. We're saying that ice becomes water. We're not saying the ice continues to exist. The ice is gone. The water is what remains behind. But then that means that water, that the ice ceases to exist. So this one is a direct logical contradiction. Our son, this one says we can coherently say that one thing ceases to exist and another starts to exist. But we can't coherently say that something does not exist. Well, if we can't coherently say that something does not exist, then we can't say that something ceases to exist. So this is also a direct logical contradiction. Now the claim is that we can't coherently say that something does not exist. Well, good luck. I already went through this once with you when we dealt with the argument about division. Something does not exist is a self-contradiction. The word something means something that exists and we say something does not exist. We're saying something that exists does not exist. Boom, logical contradiction. Declare the sentences that compose the subjects and predicates. Nothing cannot be either a subject or a predicate because it can't be described and it can't do any describing. It's not a noun. It's not a verb. It's not an adjective. The word nothing. It can't be noun. It can't be verb. It can't be an adjective. There's no coherent way for us to talk about nothing. Every time we use the word nothing in a sentence as nothing, not just mention in the word saying nothing has more than four letters. When I say something does not exist or there's nothing in my pocket or I didn't have anything for lunch. These are all incoherent statements. We do it all the time, but they're incoherent. Again, if you could figure out a way to talk about nothing, you have to do so to where it's not in a declared sentence. It's not a subject or a predicate. It's not a noun or verb or adjective. You can figure out a way to do it. I'll be impressed. All right, so with this one we're trying to say we can't coherently say that one thing ceases to exist and another starts to exist. But we can't coherently talk about something coming from nothing. So when you think about the ice cube melting, where does the water come from? It comes from the ice, we say. But the ice doesn't exist. Whenever we look at this little bit of water, where did this bit of water come from? It came from the ice. What ice? There's no ice there anymore. The ice is gone. We're saying the water comes from what does not exist. The water comes from nothing. And it's not as if there's ice and water at the same time. It's not ice water or what ice. It's not like what ice. It's nothing like that. It's not something that's both ice and water at the same time. Again, if you want to go down to the molecular level, that's fine. You can do that. But then it's not water and ice that exists. It's atoms or molecules of dihydrogen monoxide. And ice and water doesn't exist anymore, just dihydrogen monoxide, certain patterns. You could try that if you like. But even with that, right, if we say where did the dihydrogen monoxide in this pattern come from? It came from that previous pattern. What previous pattern? There's nothing there. So this probably is something like a logical contradiction. All right, so for this one, we're saying it's possible to coherently say that something comes from nothing. I guess you can try. To the best of my knowledge, nobody seriously does anything like this. I mean, maybe, maybe, maybe what the Big Bang just happened, right? Okay, maybe we just grant something like that. Fine. But that doesn't help account for the rest of the changes, right? Nobody says that something comes from nothing and we don't just say ice just happens. Oh, look, there's ice. Where did it come from? It came from nothing. It's spontaneous. We don't say anything like that. Yeah, maybe you might try to find some kind of subatomic particle that spontaneously comes into existence. I mean, sometimes they talk this way. Okay, maybe something like that, you might be able to work with something like that. But that doesn't happen with ice, right? If you try this on a global scale, if you say, well, to explain all this change, I'm going to say that, you know, so when it rains, where does the rain come from? It comes from nothing. So like, where did it come from? It came from nothing. These trees, where did it come from? Acorns? No, you're wrong again. It came from nothing. If we try this on a global scale, we've completely rejected anything of what we're dealing with in the physical sciences. So you could try this if you'd like. But you're leaving the best example of our knowledge behind. This one says that perception reliably gives us the truth about change, but we can't coherently describe it. Well, this isn't a logical contradiction, but it is very weird. So I look around and I see all kinds of changes and perception reliably gives me these changes, it reliably tells me about them. And I, you know, I see that the wind is moving and that the sun shines and then doesn't shine. All of this, my perceptions can reliably give me the truth about these changes, but I can't talk about it. Well, again, I guess you could go this way if you like. But then you've left behind science. You'd left behind the physical sciences. All that talk is now incoherent. That would be weird, exceedingly weird. But I guess you could try it if you like.