Does NOUMENON "exist" (since it's not "empirically verifiable" but remains logically necessary)?

Everything exists, because nothing can not exist, because nonexistence evidently does not exist. Only there are different ways of "existing". The noumenal and the intelligible exist in a way that we cannot physically verify, and sometimes, in a non-physical way, because existing is not only being matter, it is simply being.

The "objectivity" trap (humans are fundamentally subjective).

Yeah, I know, that's why I hesitate a lot to consider things as "facts", when it can be, after all, an opinion.

Facts are always distinguishable from opinions.

How can we distinguish facts from opinions when, as you say, what we consider to be the truth is what is "probably true"? It is always something "probable" and not certain, we are not 100% sure of anything, not even I am sure of this statement, so how can we know that what we consider facts are not just opinions? I am not saying with this that all opinions are equally probable, there are some more than others and therefore more valid, but in the end, opinions, because we cannot be sure.

I consider "justified knowledge" as "actionable hypothesis" based on its EFFICACY.

I see no utility in conflating "actionable hypothesis" with apodictic truth.

I see justified knowledge as the closest we can be to objective truth, from what I said earlier.