Ah, that's valid. I didn't think of it from a mathematical perspective like that. I suppose in the end it's dependent on whether I can take the characters for their word, but once I start doubting everything it just becomes pointless to make deductions. Data data, no bricks without clay. But when you put it that way, it does put to light the thought that "finding One Piece" the first time would have had very little effect on the world, which agrees with your theory. However, is One Piece not something Roger himself "created" by "leaving it all in that place" and then declaring everyone to go get it? Or at least that's what he claims in the opening section, though it's not something the characters ever directly witnessed. Putting it that way, it's not so much that One Piece originally existing was the thing that would turn the world upside down, it's finding it again. (Assuming that One Piece did exist, and assuming that Roger did go to Raftel as he and his crew members claim.) I'm going in circles here though, between "One Piece is something Roger found and made his" and "One Piece is something Roger created". I like that Material conditional, though. It was very interesting to learn about that. Yes, I believe it's called "Occam's Razor." It's a philosophical principle. When multiple explanations exist, the more assumptions you have to make for a given explanation, the less likely it is. Or shortly put, the simplest explanation is generally more likely. I should probably do that more often, really. It's kind of fun. I don't mean to put down theories, but usually when I read them my first instinct is to look for holes. It's most likely a rude habit, but I like to think that it helps the theories themselves become better when/if they can be explained. That does work.