Absence of evidence -- thought(s) 3

Assuming one has perfect tools to gather evidence and has undertaken a perfect job of searching for it, absence of evidence implies:

• non-existence 
• overwhelming existence 

The former is self explanatory. The latter, allow me to explain:
For evidence to exist somewhere, it should not exist elsewhere -- only then can a tool detect it, measure it and capture it. Or rather, only then can we perceive it because our perception is operational only under a contrast. If something is present everywhere in the same fullness, we are unable to perceive it. For all practical purposes, anything present on both sides of an equation cancels out.  It does not matter to us whether it exists on both sides equally or does not exist at all -- there will be no measurable effect. But if something is present everywhere and has the same effect on everything else, the effect should not be denied...even when it cannot be known. So if an effect exists and cannot be known, whatever difference that may be measured, may be the difference in the subjects' baseline state or subsequent states determined by additional factors.

Some other day...I might come back with more

CIAO