Consider for a moment, that you're a scientist, that is attempting to determine the value of x in an equation that predicts the state of the world five years from now. The equation itself is completely valid, with you understanding every component of he equation and how it works, and that there are no flaws or workarounds of the equation. The only uncertainties lies in which of the two possible values for x would result in the right outcome, the one that will come true in five years.

After long, exhaustive, analysis, you find that only two values are mathematically valid:

x = 2, which predicts that the world will end within five years. x = 3, which predicts a prosperous and stable future.

Each value produces a completely different outcome, and there is no possible way to determine which value is correct. For the equation, no further evidence will become available, and the uncertainty cannot be resolved.

Crucially, if the “end of the world” scenario is true, preparing for it over the next five years could significantly reduce or even prevent the catastrophe. If the prosperous scenario is true, preparation would turn out to be unnecessary.

Given this, which would you choose?

A. Spend the next five years believing that x = 2, living with fear and anxiety but actively preparing for the worst.

B. Spend the next five years believing that x = 3, living happily and without fear, but risking severe consequences if the catastrophic outcome turns out to be real.

The question here is would you sacrifice your sanity and a peace of mind preparing for the worst, or would you tell yourself "everything is gonna be alright." with the probability that the worst outcome were to happen.