Understanding the world

The point is that the claim about the connection between the crystalline structure that exists in reality itself and creates the color and the color. It is also built on the concept of crystallinity and the concept of connection.
All these things also have no basis in the reality around us. Therefore, the connection between our understanding and the reality around us is not clear
(The example I gave of a person of good character referred to the B’)

There is a lack of understanding here of what I explained.
The concept of crystallinity also exists in the world in some form and its image with us is described in our terminology. And again, there is no meaning in talking about whether there is a connection between the two, because clearly there is a connection: what is called crystallinity in the world creates an image with us that is called crystallinity with us. Think about a creature that is built differently, and for him there are no visual images at all, but other senses. The world with him will not be presented visually but in a different way (for example, sound). Is there no correspondence between reality itself and what is in his consciousness? Of course there is a correspondence. He is just as right as we are. Both he and we describe the same image in two different languages (such as Hebrew and English). Both he and we have a correspondence between the world and the image (audio or video) in consciousness.

Rabbi Michi, what do you mean by “virtues are within a person and it is difficult for us to know anything about them directly”? I think that virtues are simply behavior that arouses in us the feeling “this is good” or “this is bad”. What should be understood by them?

Absolutely not. Virtues are qualities and character of the soul itself. Behavior is at most an expression of virtues, and even that is not always the case (since virtues do not dictate behavior. We also have a choice, and character does not fully dictate behavior).
I have written about this here more than once, in the settlement of the question about Maharash and Rabbi Kook who made it difficult why the Torah does not command the correction of virtues and extended it for their sake in settling the matter. And I, to my chagrin, did not understand, since the Torah does command: to adhere to the virtues of the Holy One, and this is a commandment enumerated in all the central commandments.
And in explaining the matter, I wrote that what we are commanded is to speak in His actual conduct (action verbs), since this is the only thing that is visible to us. But correction of virtues does not speak about behavior, but about our character and inner tendencies. There is really no commandment about that. And so on.

Well, I see that my wording was not good.
I mean to ask: What is there to ”understand” in the measures themselves? What is not understood in them? The criterion for good or bad measurement is not the same inner feeling (”intuition”) that measure A’ is bad and measure B’ is good?

You asked about what I said. I was talking about the ability to know someone's measurements (diagnosis) and not about understanding the meaning of the measurement itself.

Oh, sorry. So I didn't understand what you said.