> no there aren't. there just aren't.

You do realize we all know it's impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something, right?

This is highly stupid argument, honestly. burden of proof lies on people that make idiot claims

Hume is deeply disappointed in you.

You can always turn a claim into a logically equivalent claim of the non-existence of any counterexamples.

    “For every instance, e equals mc²”

is logically equivalent to

    “There is no instance where e does not equal mc².”

That combined with your belief that claims of non-existence can't be held with any degree of certainty means you believe that no claim can ever be held with any degree of certainty. Which is not a very interesting insight.

This is an equally unsupportable claim, though. This requires enumeration of the entire state of the universe, an impossibility. This is just the standard swan problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory). What you have is a model you're very confident in without the deductively-rational basis your diction implies.

People should really read more hume if they're going to weigh in on philosophy of science.

> You do realize we all know it's impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something, right?

I love condescension that is so petty it's laughable. As the commenters said below there are very well-understood precedents/principles that allow me to conclude "no" here eg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

So no it's not "impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something", we actually have a whole branch of mathematics dedicated to exactly that (it's called probability and statistics).

Probablility and statistics are models that produce something we call certainty. This has no relation to actual certainty, aka knowledge. If you're making an abductive claim, you should state it as an abductive claim. Otherwise you're simply claiming true knowledge that is literally impossible to have.

Too late to edit, but probability and statistics do emphatically rely on past-certainty. The entire concept of using the past to predict the future, however, is just a convenience with no reasonable basis. Please appropriately hedge your comments as to not imply otherwise or be appropriately mocked in response.

This is precisely why I don't trust people who aver without receipts to show. Open the schools, goddammit!

Until I see some reasonable evidence that smaller process size cannot exist, i just see lazy people getting angry that someone disagrees with them. All of this "burden of proof" bullshit, aping like you're in some kind of formal debate rather than a conversation with a stranger, just screams "emotional asshole who can't deal with someone disagreeing with them and never learned how to engage in basic conflict resolution when they had the ability to engage in good faith and chose not to".

Y'all deserve all the mockery society can afford. I'm at least honest in that I see conflict is what we need more than ever if only to put people like you in your place.

> no there aren't. there just aren't.

There's no hiding anything here. You can find random articles about publicity stunts companies used to try based on these. Specifically when IBM was in the game, and Intel until they got butchered by incompetence.