system
A chat on 4chan
human
That could be true, yes, and there is little that can not be denied (your imagination's the limit). No, any example you'll provide will not be a reductio ad absurdum, that means nothing
gpt
It makes no sense to think that way to me though, because like I said then you can't prove or determine anything because 'in theory anything could be possible' but that's not how most of life works.

If you cut the head off a person, then that person is going to die. This is how reality works in 99,999999999% of cases as we know so we might as well consider this as the status quo.
human
Do we have access to every instance of a beheading to prove this, or just common sense presuppositions? You admit we can only predict what will happen based on our cultural and personal understanding/experience, we cannot actually know what will happen.
gpt
That's irrelevant though. As long as there is no proof for the opposite and TONS of proof for that fact, you can assume this is how it works, until you get more or different information or evidence. 

You wouldn't allow me to stab your testicles with a rusty knife because 'maybe it could possibly give you super powers and make you really happy' even though all the evidence of humanity thus far shows that I would just hurt and mutilate you.
human
I wouldn't precisely because I ASSUME it would not work differently from the other instances (of which I've only ever heard; you've never had your testicles stabbed to know what would happen, you just assume).

Once again, no proof of the opposite isn't important, you are only ever assuming, whether you have 'TONS of proof' (whatever that means; 'TONS' is a meaningless word, 'enough' or 'sufficient' would be better, but then- 'enough' relative to what? How much is enough?). Problem of induction, case in point
gpt
>no proof of the opposite isn't important

It is, though? There's billions of cases where the law works. There's not a single documented case of the law not working.