 All right, so one thing to say right away, the question is whether emphatically succeeds. One thing to say right away is, perminities would flip out, right? You would absolutely fit over division between the ones. Like, are you kidding? I just got finished saying there is no division, right? So there's lots and lots of these ones, but there's also this division and he was like, no, you can't have that. Never mind the fact that, you know, if these particles, these ones are moving, that's a change. They're not that permanent. Maybe they're indestructible and maybe they're always fire or they're always water. Okay, but they're still moving around. That's a change. And perminities spend a lot of time arguing that change is itself impossible because it's always changing from one thing to the next. So, you know, if we say that a particle moves, well, then it's, you know, it was here, but now it's over here. So it's not here anymore. Well, now that now you're talking about nothing because it's not in a place. So, perminities would absolutely flip out over this possibility of these particles that are once changing and not changing. Heraclitus would also flip out. Say, look, you're trying to tell me there's an object that undergoes change, but there's no unity, that the objects are changing? No, no, no. Unity is what doesn't change. Unity is what doesn't change. It's not the particles because the objects change depending upon the combinations of particles. So some particles going in, some particles going out. So those particles aren't accounting for the unity of the object. You say that there's something changing there. You're calling an object, but there's no unity. So Heraclitus wouldn't like this either. Empedocles, synoptic discussion, scene six, take one. Okay, so it really looks like what Empedocles did is just kind of took really two cool theories that are nevertheless contrary to each other, right? One's true, the other's false, and just kind of took some cool parts of each and put them together. Now, let's not be too hard on Empedocles, right? I mean, we do this too. And for the least of which, right, we do this for entertainment's sake. So Star Trek, right? And Star Trek claims that there's no money. No money in Star Trek. You just kind of live your life, right? Now, what they're doing is combining like the really cool parts of Marxism and the really cool parts of capitalism, right? There's no money. Therefore, there's no greed, no hoarding of resources. And that's a really cool part of Marxism. But at the same time, you take your resources and live your own life as you see fit, live your life of fulfillment. Well, that's a cool part of capitalism. Well, the problem is they never explain, how they divide up the resources. And you kind of have to, I mean, maybe sometimes they try to say the resources are unlimited. Maybe they try to say they aren't. But regardless, right? They leave that big, huge question about how the resources are divided. They just leave that up to your imagination. So, like I said, we just took really two really cool parts of contrary theories and put it together for the sake of entertainment. That's not the last time we do that, right? There's plenty of cases and very, you know, lots of prominent theories where we just kind of take these contrary theories, find cool parts and slam them together. You know, Empedocles has done this, but hey, you know, he hasn't succeeded in bringing these two theories together. But let's not be too hard on Empedocles.