There Is at Least One Thing We Are Sure About, but . . .
So, we can know for sure almost nothing.
Yes, strictly speaking.
As far as I know, there is one thing I'm sure about: something exists. . . . I may be delusional, but delusion must exist; I may not exist as Mr. Spock doesn't exist, but someone who contrived me as an imaginary character must exist. I don't know what exists, but something must be there.
. . . Hmm, I can't deny that. And it doesn't matter if I was wrong because then, I who am wrong don't exist, and my wrongness doesn't exist either.
As it's an immovable fact that we can know for sure almost nothing, maybe, we should accept the fact, and just try to reject all that are doubtful.
It's certainly a noble principle, but in reality, we can't live that way. For example, we sit on a chair because we assume that the chair exists. Otherwise, we won't be able to sit any more.
That's troublesome: that will tire our legs out. But if we don't assume that the ground exists, we can't even be standing . . . So, we should be floating.
Only if, we could float.
What We Can Do Is to Maintain the Hypotheses System
So, what can we do? . . . Well, I guess, hypothesizing.
And perpetually examining and modifying the hypotheses system with new inputs.
By the way, I realized now that I'm named Hypothesizer. Have I been supposed to make hypotheses from the beginning?
More than likely.
Anyway, it's important that we treat hypotheses as hypotheses, not as facts, and keep examining them against all the inputs we acquire and repeal or modify them as required.
We can't usually directly examine each hypothesis one by one, but examine some logical conclusions from a system of hypotheses, which enhance the validity of the hypotheses system.
Ah-ha, we examine the law of gravitation by motions of planets, but motions of planets can't be calculated with only the law of gravitation, but with both the law of gravitation and the law of motion.
Yes.
So, we have to think of the system of hypotheses, not isolated individual hypotheses. The hypotheses system has to be wholly logically consistent.
Yes, any hypotheses system that includes even one inconsistency is futile. As any conclusion can be drawn from such a hypotheses system, acts of examining the system become meaningless.
Can any conclusion be drawn from any hypotheses system that includes even one inconsistency?
Yes. As the rule that the system has to be consistent has been already discarded, why not another inconsistency is allowed? We can just put the arbitrary conclusion in the system as a new hypothesis, and can draw the conclusion from the new hypothesis itself . . .
Ah-ha, that's futile . . .
As the universe is one, all the information about the universe have to be and actually is consistent. If a hypotheses system contradicts one any piece of information, the system is wrong somewhere and has to be modified to become consistent with all the known information. Any hypotheses system can be validated only that way.
Is the universe really one? How about parallel universes?
The existence of parallel universes is irrelevant to our argument. I mean this universe by 'the universe'. No matter how many other universes there are, this universe is one, and I'm talking only about this universe. No matter what are happening in other universes, what are happening in this universe are happening as they are. The existence of parallel universes can't be any excuse to be inconsistent.
Ah-ha, certainly, when I'm hungry, being told that my counter part in another universe may be full isn't any solution or consolation to me. I would say, "So what? I am hungry, right here!"
