done um with the with the with the assumption that uh with the assumption of what the proposition might be which which i think and and and and we think is is might be some sort of claim towards a unity or nonduality between subject and object between knowing and known however that's going to be phase it can be i mean metaphysically might be put out into a more full-blown monism of some sort but not even needing to go that far i think that a better question would be to those participants and i think this can be done contemporaneously and historically that thing which you realize was not god and that thing which you realize about what was your relationship with that thing and if i put my money on it it would be oh i felt really warm with it i felt reminded i felt really unified with that thing i felt really um present in its presence and embraced by um and and that would be i think that would be said of both of both the the all and and the none um that's that's that's my that's why that's my that would be my counter argument for using using the probabilistic argument for a for a metaphysical claim not towards an entity or a being or a deity but simply the the what was the the what was the texture or the qualia of that relationship and and my bets are and and i think that the evidence points to this that it's that it's towards unitive so i agree with that um and i i um i was trying to point towards that with you know propositions ultimately about the intelligibility because that's what you were doing right yes um and that and notice that the historical argument is convergent with this structural argument the cognitive scientific argument because already in flow states people are talking about at one minute and i've given a case that that's not fluff or ephemeral that points to real improvement in a real picking up on the real patterns in reality so i i you know i think um i think that's right i do think um i i guess i disagree with you on that i do think real questions uh i think there are real debates between theis