 Either you disagree with Annex Amandis, or you disagree with Annex Amander. That is, either you think it's false that everything is composed of the infinite, the boundless, or you think it's false that everything is composed of something finite. So Annex Amandis thought it was water, but he nevertheless thought that everything is composed of something finite, something definable. Today, we think it's, you know, atoms. So either you disagree with Annex Amander, or you disagree with Annex Amandis. Now, rejecting a conclusion is fine. That's your prerogative. But both conclusions are the products of deductively valid arguments. That means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. If you reject a premise, excuse me, if you reject the conclusion, you have to show which premise is false. If the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises is false. So we can't just reject a conclusion and walk away. We have to explain which premise is false and why. So here is the reconstruction of Annex Amander's argument. You've seen this before in an earlier video. You'll notice, right, there are several premises in here. Sorry, several propositions in here that have a parenthetical notation. They have the parentheses with the two line numbers cited by a rule. You don't have to know all of that. I put that there mostly for my benefit. But also just to show you that there are rules of reason that give us these inferences. So if you reject the conclusion that Annex Amander has given us, you have to reject one of the premises from which it's inferred. Now some of these, some points along the way, he makes inferences to the final conclusion. So we can't just reject the inferences. We have to reject those premises upon which everything rests. Even if we reject an inference along the way, we have to reject one of the premises from which that inference comes. So in his argument, if we reject the conclusion, we have to reject the premises upon which everything relies in the argument. Here are the premises in Annex Amander's argument from which everything relies, from which everything else is inferred. So this is a reconstruction of Annex Amander's argument. Again, you've seen this before inside of one of the earlier videos. And like with Annex Amander's, there are inferences made along the way. His entire argument relies upon, or his conclusion relies upon those premises that don't have any parenthetical notation. They're just, you know, they're taken as evidence, as evidence in and of itself. So here is the argument what that conclusion relies upon these premises. Rejecting a conclusion commits you to rejecting a premise. That means you're rejecting a proposition. You're claiming some proposition is false. Well, that's not the end of the story either. If you reject a proposition, you claim some proposition is false, you were logically committed to that proposition's contradictory. Every proposition has a contradictory. You say a proposition is false, you're committed to its logical contradictory. Here's kind of a brief schema for this. We have propositions, different kinds of propositions, and their contradictory side by side. Both can't be true, both can't be false. If you reject one, you have to accept the other. So if you reject a conclusion, that's fine, that's your prerogative. But that means that you have to reject one of the premises. And these premises are each propositions. If you reject the proposition, a premise, you are logically committed to its contradictory. So these are the premises upon which Annexamannus' conclusion relies. As I just got finished talking about, if you reject a proposition, you're logically committed to its contradictory. If you reject these premises, then you are logically committed to these contradictory. These are the premises upon which Annexamannus' argument relies. If you reject Annexamannus' conclusion, you have to reject one of the premises, and you're logically committed to their contradictory. These are the contradictory. Incidentally, if you're all convinced that 21st century physics is on the right track, you are committed to rejecting Annexamannus' conclusion. So if you think that the fundamental constituent of the universe is some sort of particle, that's the theory of physics, then you are committed to one of these propositions here, these contradictory to Annexamannus' premises. If you think Annexamannus' right that we're fundamentally incapable of defining all this stuff around us, because it's close to the infinite, then you disagree with Annexamannus' and you're committed to rejecting one of his premises, which means you're committed to one of these contradictory.