I'd quite like to use an analogous argument to demonstrate the existence of the Universe by showing certainty of non-existence was untenable. Hopefully this would lead to a Universe with uncertainty.
This might be so if the fundamental entity is something like logical propositions.
You are welcome.
Now, explaining what I meant could take many paragraphs. The book is written by a neurologist. Basically, where Descartes erred is that he can "know" nothing. Then he has an "a priori"...I can "think". From there, he "proves" soup to nuts all the way up to God and angels.
His basic premise was false. (And, no, I'm not saying he couldn't think. Hint: But you do first need a brain in order to be able to think. So, "I am (have a brain), therefore I think"...but he had it backwards. Also, he went on to "prove" his relgious beliefs from this premise. No actual proofs needed...omphaloskepsis at its finest.
There is a problem with this refutation. Descartes started by doubting in everything (including science, religion, time, space, his body and finally his own existence). But when he did so, he found out, that there is one thing in which he cannot doubt, and that is doubt itself (I doubt, therefore I exist is more accurate altough less interpretation of Cogito, ergo sum.) as that would be contradictory. It is purely logical and it doesn't even matter if human has a brain or not.
I agree though that his proofs from there on can be quite dubious.