The live dead hypothesis thing is so critical to this argument that if he's saying that it's it's spurious whether or not something is you're inclined to believe it like it's a matter of just the accident, then that leads to a very pessimistic pessimistic epistemological conclusion. So I don't think he sees it as pessimistic, right? I think he thinks that's just life that we are going that certain things are going to be live for us. Now again, this is what I was saying earlier. The whole idea of probabilistic belief is not addressed in this. You never hear him talk about things that are where you like it's either suspend judgment or all out belief.