The question, then, becomes a philosophical one, that being in the absence of empirical evidence, can a person accept the notion that reality is something other than what can be proven or disproven. Our existence, for the most part, seems divided between what we all can agree through consistent measure is real, and what we individually accept as the most likely explanation at the time for things we cannot consistently measure. The lure of such shows as ghost hunter, in search of, and all the other metaphysical inquiries have at least some basis in science, even if the conclusions reached by some remain quite speculative. Even in science there is a certain amount of creative, subjective influence in order for new discoveries to even be considered. For instance, is the currently accepted explanation of the existence of black holes the only explanation? Of course not, but for now it makes the most sense. Eventually technology will develop to the point where the reality of black holes can be more solidly measured, confirmed, and explained. Likewise, the notion of the atom is something we can still only experience indirectly, lacking the means to verifiably study such small particles through direct observation. We can do the math that establishes the likelihood that such phenomena are as we describe them, but again, it is not the only explanation, and often times future events serve to redefine our original notions and thus improve our understanding of our own existence in some small way.

Back in high school I was confronted with a most Socratic assertion; that being what is the proportion of the sum total of mankind's knowledge to date in relation to all that can be known? The logical conclusion being that mankind's current knowledgebase is relatively insignificant when compared to all knowledge. Therefore, in the vast amount of information not presently available to us, there must exist the knowledge of a reality we can barely even imagine in the slightest amount (even if your surname is Serling). Therefore, to say our existence is somehow limited by the breadth of only what we know in our lifetime is to discount all the possibilities of what our existence could be, while simultaneously affirming that we can never become more than what we can hope to know while we are alive.

Yes, that is what is called a paradox. Such is the essence of mortality.