Jacques leaps explantory gap

First a quote from a book I'm reading, Knowing: The Nature of Physical Law, and then a comment.

By the six "flavors" we know them: the up quark, the down quark, the charm quark, the strange quark, the top quark, the bottom quark. The names are whimsical, but the attributes they represent are not. Quarks affix their signatures to the very real events that take place in particle accelerators, and quarks behave with a consistency that we can mirror in precise mathematical terms. We know quite well what they do, even though everyday language fails to embrace their essence (emphasis mine).

Isn't it interesting that we can know in precise terms what quarks do and fail to see, yet find ourselves peering into the imprecision of Jacques' soliloquy only to discover the compact, knotted, near-perfect expression of the entire human condition?

Wayne

Wikipedia: Soliloquy, All the world's a stage, explanatory gap