For the first time, we can regard that what nobody can never deny as the fact must be very strictly correct, not wrong thing, so appropriately.

What makes me claim so is derived from that if we can get anybody's consensus, that must never be so inappropriate thing, we can regard it so. And necessarily past thing either can be applied. Because if anybody can admit e.g. few minute ago, a small earthquake was made on the earth as to us, anybody can feel tangibly and physically, the fact could never be overturned. And what makes me think and what makes us regard so is caused from that from the beginning, e.g. to me who arrived at someplace else, and few hours ago that location had small earthquake, and to it, anybody settled there had the same testimony, even if I had not been there and not known to it, but anybody who was there as the earthquake occurring vicinity was having the same testimony, that matter must never be fake talk nor incorrect testimony. Because even not mutually never so close nor known ones are all accidentally having the same illusion nor intentionally try to lie fir cheating me, that probability must never be possibly happening nor probable matter. 

Though at overwhelmingly credible degree, some the same testimony must be the correct, at least very credible matter, we can regard it so convincingly.
Because e.g. what I was lied and cheated as that possibility or probability must be none, unless I was doing in front of them all insane action, indeed. 

Though, joint attention, and joint attentive identified content testimony should be to some very credible extent truted and believed to us, so in general. 

In other words, our own society must be composed with those mutually credibly correct things in joint attention abiding mutual trust, and language activity by itself must be one of the typical example or sample to evidence our social nature in which anybody easily can lie or any fake thing could never easily talked nor told to anybody. 
Though, e.g. Phenemenology by itself can mention either that socially commonly agreeable and own joint attentive cognition, but its attitude is genuinely correct, and to it, Analytical Philosophy often inject harsh criticism, but that stance is never seen so appropriate, though Analytical Philosophers at taking very frequent only skepticism should revise the attitude. 
 Because probability should be seen so credibly evidential. 

And upper small earthquake example interpretation was at least formally complete "Deduction ad absurdism" or to say, "Proof of Contradiction", "Reduction to the absurd", "indirect proof", "apagogical argument", "deductio ad absurdum, RAA".

With their own premise, let's formulate those things with several useful symbols.

After all, if we believe in something, it must be probability abiding the most probably expectable thing must be held in mind, that could be (PRB), and what almost all ones, in some finite zone, witnessed are, as past accident, the most probable item of the truly ever made, happened thing. That could be 〔PRB〕, next formulation could be given to us.

(PRB): 〔PRB〕 ← 〔PRB〕

Nevertheless, we, very exceptionally, confront the situation that very ordinarily seen never made thing could be made. That could be 〔UEP〕, but it was very exceptional thing, we can never forget and the fact will be impressed to anybody's mind. Though next formulation must be given.

If usually, and ordinarily unbelievable thing could be 〈US:UNB〉, and once made, or given to us could be (OM,G), and ordinarily made, or given to us could be (ORM), and Reality could be 【R】, next equation must be outputted. 

【R】= (ORM) + 〈US:UNB〉,

 (OM,G)  ⊃ 〈US:UNB〉,

And, if many ones once witnessed and believable thing could be (MOB),

(MOB) ⊃ 〈US:UNB〉+ (OM,G)

(Irregularly continued)

Dec. 14th.    2023