>>23 is an unprovable assumption, no matter which way you look at it.
Of course it is (I said so myself). My only point here is; Why chose a result that is in no way indicated by the data at hand? The problem was of course a vastly simplified one but I'm hoping people get the idea.
>>What if 2 isn't really 2.
Which is exactly the same as the question I posed, really. All evidence to date points to the fact that 2 is 2. So based on this, we are technically making an assumption that this is the case. Why would it not be?
Depending on how ridiculous you want to get, you could say that everything is uncertain. But as its already been stated, you are going to have to decide whether or not you trust your senses. Deciding to neglect the evidence will, in a sense, turn your world to chaos. Without a concrete set of rules by which to compare different elements, you will arive at a different conclusion from the same calculation. This is pure bunk. By deciding to ignore the most logical solution in favour of one that has no supporting evidence you are declaring that you believe the universe to be random and chaotic which is so obviously not the case.