Color Me Frustrated: Despite his efforts, Eric [Weinstein] makes the common mistake of trying to explain the invisible by conflating the measurement as existential with what is being measured as existential. There are no ‘spinners’ there are (exist) some combination of forces that produce the spinning effect, and we just don’t know what they are. And because we cannot (yet?) measure at such scales we must explain observations in measurements – but “the description is not the thing, it’s a description of the consequences of the thing”. THERE IS NOTHING COMPLICATED about quantum physics, or any other kind of physics, or any other science, other than the problem of providing a model – an analogy to experience – that explains what it is that we are measuring in operational terms rather than the literary analogy we call mathematics. (Einstein gave us the elastic surface model of gravity for example.) Eric calls this visualizing – reducing to an analogy to experience. Measurements(individual terms) are more complicated than the models (aggregates), just as the mathematical description of of a whirlpool or tornado is more complicated than the visual observation. Unfortunately, we don’t know the model of reality in analogy to physical experience – not material as in mass, but material as in existential. Moreover: The 248/8 (Lisi) symmetry (“self referentiality”) means nothing more than such a system, of that many forces, in that many dimensions, can maintain equilibrium without appeal to external forces – and this suggests a possibility of completeness meaning nothing is left to discover. (We have no idea if he’s right really. Only that this is an example of the category of candidate solutions we might investigate.) Every bit of evidence we have finds the same forces, which we reduced to analogy to experience using the model of electromagnetism, fluids, fluids of different densities, and describe with vectors, graphs, networks, manifolds of forces. So far we divide the universe into forces, particles, atoms, molecules, biological, life, sentience (cognition), speech and calculation(grammars of disambiguation comparison and transaction) in all its forms. And there is little evidence or demand for any grammar (system of relations) smaller than those fundamental forces. The question is largely whether those fundamental forces exist in space, which we would need to define, or whether they produce space, and as such need no further definition.