Natural knowledge is basically binary before it develops into more sophisticated uses, or functions from the existential requirements of knowledge, such as flight or flight. Physics derives perhaps, from the literally physical manifestations of knowledge, and that is why it is referentially effective
It s ontology has such referent, and it has a probability of recurrence based.on existential recurrence, rather then primarily a thematic one to physics as a secondary development.
You are right, its a probabilistic hypothesis, arguable both ways, but not as deeply divisive as for instance, the familiar question were to be asked: What comes first, the chicken or the egg.
In any case, the problem therefore, is not settled, yet does not rise to the level of being paradoxical. It tends to gravitate toward a semantic loophole, but I that might be diversive , to cover for the latent inversion of knowledge and its effective entropy, or closure.
The literality of hypothesis breaks down as Your answer suggests it might, but I do have some reference, although equally suggestive.
My only defense is based on a more probable scenario , and with probability ranging minimally from nearly a 50-50 scenario…
For this You may challenge with a more narrow focus toward an effect of demonstrative physical science criteria, but the ontology or metaphysical basis suggests more then merely a semantic criteria
I do wish it were the other way, and that is what ultimately I believe, but demonstraticaly, it’s more conjecture in with a categorically imperative, then its underlying causation. Needless to say, science foundations may be revisited and even revised, over again. There are no present statistical showings whereby, the shidtnfrom probable to more certainty may not change the rules themselves.