My view are somewhat similar to [1]Arthur n the first two
   paragraphs. I do not generally make up my mind until I must and
   even then, I change freely when necessary: [although to be more
   clear: "must" and "necessary" _should_ jump out at you for what
   they really are: Wish. Want. Feel like it. They are not MUSTs.
   They are not NECESSARY. Not SHOULD or OUGHT, although they COULD
   have parts of MUST, NECESSARY, SHOULD AND OUGHT within it but
   rarely exclusively] I reserve my frustrations with myself for I
   wish to have perfect answers instantly available for any given
   situation that will instantly resolve all doubt among myself and
   anybody who happens to be within ear - or eye - shot. (as I'm
   usually online). I do not always have that ability, so that is
   where my frustration lies. I do not place it on other people.
   They have their own journeys to take. Is the cat on the
   outskirts of the reality? Perhaps. But I tend to believe the cat
   is on the inskirts of reality. Close than the underpants. Within
   the nervous system of the contemplating individual. Things are.
   But our abilities to determine "What is" "isn't" "might" are
   easily led and misled by logic. Evidence. Analogy. Numbers.
   Metaphor. All can lead and deceive because facts are TRANSMITTED
   things. Who is transmitting? Why are they transmitting? Are they
   trustworthy? Discernment, unfortunately, is no easy matter. Your
   smarter neighbor sometimes can't help you much. A committee of
   elders sometimes can't help you much. You can't always help
   yourself much. Your computer can't always help you. You
   remember: "Garbage In, Garbage Out?" GIGO. That's that they
   shoved in us (metaphorically) in computer classes in the 1980s.
   GIGO. A computer gives answers only as good as the data going
   in. You can have a perfectly running program. All the logic
   works. It compiles. It runs! Hand-picked answers that always
   work will always work. Normal cases will work and will always
   work. But garbage can also go through the perfect logic as long
   as it is well-formatted garbage and what comes out is still
   garbage. Logically processable garbage, but still garbage. Now
   [2]Peter Stanbury - I'm not saying [x] is good data or garbage.
   I don't know. Not all information is life or death. Think of
   eating: Most of what we eat is garbage. It turns into shit. Yet
   within that garbage is something good. Our body uses what it
   can. SOME food (information) is Doritos. Snack food. Popcorn.
   Nuts. Candy. Salty. Sweet. Fun. If [x] is something that goes
   through the logic circuits and outputs a pleasing result and it
   turns out to be snack food that you LIKE? You're not actually
   POISONING anybody with it or yourself? Then eat it. It's not
   garbage. This is where GIGO isn't always correct. Maybe a
   variation of FIFO: Fun In, Fun Out. [not First in first out -
   that's another thing] Beliefs in possibilities that may or may
   not ever be proven is part of the fun in theoretical physics and
   areas that can't seem to fully be proven either way. Stuff in
   the awkward or fantastical zone. Now, I happen to think a lot
   that's come out of theoretical physics is candy. Fun. Salty
   sweet snacks that are delicious on the tongue and fun for the
   brain to ponder and enjoy. Yet, they don't hold much practical
   value. They're fun. Practical theoretical physics is Standard
   Model. We have all the answers we need for the moment to make
   real stuff work and happen with engineering and chemistry.
   Multiple Universe don't help build quantum computers but they
   COULD work mathematically within the quantum computers to allow
   for seeing possibilities that we wouldn't see otherwise had we
   progressed purely constructivist and not using statistical
   probabilities. By a similar token, bunk or debunk, myth or true,
   there are certain curiosities that may or may not be true and
   they are fun. They also hold practical value as they give our
   imagination expansion room for possibilities in areas that
   purely constructivist does not allow for on its own. So if [x]
   gives your brain expansion room into the Unknown and curious and
   it isn't harming anybody by such things, consider it your
   "Possibilities Space". None, All or Some _could_ be true but the
   truth values are less important than the extra dimension they
   give you to work with, whether a literal extra dimension or a
   figurative extra dimension. More room. Another piece of paper to
   draw on that you don't have to hand in at the end of the class.
   Doodle room. Sorry for nothing more conclusive than but we've
   left conclusive-land and we've moved into possibilities-land
   where things remain continually unsteady and uncertain. That's
   part of their charm.

References

   Visible links
   1. https://www.facebook.com/arty.drum.3?hc_location=ufi
   2. https://www.facebook.com/peter.stanbury.14?hc_location=ufi