 Alright, so the question is whether the atomists reply, you know, of space is a good answer to parminides. They say, what exists between objects of space and it's an immaterial receptacle for matter. How is this even coherent? I mean, let's just look at a couple issues of this, right? So if I had a jar here with some water and, you know, I understand how that jar is a receptacle for water, right? They're both material. I understand how material objects can be receptacle for matter. How does what is immaterial hold matter? Right? I mean, it's a mainstay of contemporary physics that what is immaterial does not affect what's not material. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What is immaterial does not affect what is material, right? It's not as if the number two makes pairs of things, right? There's one, the number one exists. That doesn't mean the one, one is holding this one bench in place, right? In fact, you know, real common charges, if you can't account for it in a material universe or how it either is material or affects matter, it doesn't exist. You know, this is a big thing in contemporary physics. So to say that there's an immaterial receptacle for matter, you're going to have a whole new set of causal laws to account for how what is immaterial affects what is material. Let's even place, you know, put a pin in that problem. I saw that you have the problem of whether this is even coherent, whether this can fit into our causal laws. Here's the second problem. You say it's an immaterial receptacle for matter. Well, telling me what it does not, does not tell me what it is. You tell me it's not material, but you haven't said what it is. Is it a form? Well, again, forms don't affect matter, so it's not going to be form. Is it magic? You know, that's not going to do it either. Is it what? What is this immaterial thing that's holding it in place? So that's not going to work either, right? Try and give me an account of what it is. They're already trying to give it an account of what exists by appealing to atoms. Well, they can't say that space is composed of atoms because, well, space is what holds atoms. So it's just a whole mystery. It looks like they're just kind of putting together some words and hoping it works, right? So permittances are sitting back here saying you haven't told me what it is, right? You've said that you've answered the problem of nothing, right, that the concept of nothing is incoherent by saying you're right, permittities. The concept of nothing is incoherent, but there's something there. What is it? It's something. I don't know what it is, but it's not material. I know that. Now, at best, this is incoherent. I'm sorry. At worst, this is incoherent. At best, you haven't even told us anything. You're just, there's an answer. So that's not going to work. Now before we're too hard on these two, and before we're too hard on the surface of the democratic, you remember from our discussion deal of permittities, you know, our account of space doesn't work too much better, right? We at once call it a void, and contemporary physics calls it the void between objects, so there's the void between the earth and the moon, right? And even between the individual particles of atoms, well, that's space, right? It's not like there's more atoms in between them. We at once call it a void, but at the same time, we say that space bends in a gravitational field. Now, it's impossible for nothing to bend, right? We can't bend nothing. So our account of space doesn't do too much better than the surface of the democratic is. Let's not be too hard on them, but at the end of the day, no, this answer does not succeed.