Then why did you mention it? And, you made a claim in response to my question...so what gives? This technique seems a bit unfair.

Regardless: is relevance objective? How is it measured?

Also: note that "are" is a conjugation of "is". This creates a bit of an epistemic problem does it not (considering your comment above)?

> No human can observe unobservable things by definition.

Religion is a classic counterpoint to this. Nonexistence is another. Relevance is another. Omniscience another. There are tons of examples, with new ones coming online every day!

Plus: does defining reality to be a certain way necessarily mean it takes on that form, or might it only cause it to appear to have taken on that form?