Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.

There are three possible reactions to each one: accepting, denying, ignoring, which gives nine possible combinations of "handling".

Which ones are you referring to?

You should write a book about this revolutionary theory!

In things such as the infinity of nature how can be sure how to handle either?

What if we implemented a system where explanations of things were consistently judged against each other so as to develop a set of the best explanations representing the most complete real time description of reality? Maybe we can call it science?

What if that system had only touched on an infinitesimally small amount of data in an infinite universe over hundreds of years and that system changed constantly to adjust to new discoveries so said system, wasn't totally reliable as a source of truth unless one didn't really understand how that system worked and hubristically treated it as a big daddy who has the answers to the universe, when it really doesn't, instead of a process of constantly evolving understanding?