Sure, there are still many gaps between that which science has learned [so far] about the world we live and interact in, and all that would need to be known in order to grasp the very nature of human Reality/Existence itself.
And, in that respect, mathematics, the laws of nature and the logical rules of language may well be just three more illusory houses of cards.
I would never deny that.
But then what would any scientist really have to say if he or she were told that a “reasonable standard” is embodied in this:
Life is good and you need to be powerful to handle that.
How, in using the scientific method, would they go about testing it? What sort of experiments could be conducted to confirm it? Which particular predictions might be made regarding which particular life that was deemed to be either “good” or “bad”? And how would they go about replicating results such that, in fact, some were shown to be “powerful enough to handle it” while others were not?
Similarly, how would philosophers, using the tools at their disposal, go about resolving this?
So just observe the world, our home, with empirical eyes, those that do deceive us as all the five senses do and you will find the metaphysical presence has remained since man began. Can we imagine the impossible and make it a reality?
My point however has always revolved around noting that which our five senses do observe – observations applicable to all reasonable men and women. And this seems to be encompassed re the “rational standards” embedded in mathematics, the laws of nature and the logical rules of language.
As opposed to examining Mr. Reasonable’s life and determining [scientifically, philosophically] if in fact it is a “good” life.
Unless of course this is all tongue in cheek.