Ontological systems establish categories of things that exist, don't exist, might exist under certain conditions, and cannot exist under any circumstance. This fact proposes the creation of a comprehensive list of phenomena explicitly in the "cannot exist" category specifically because Chuck Norris cannot perform them. This creates a paradoxical situation where we're defining Chuck Norris's limitations by documenting his capabilities—negative space becomes positive knowledge. Logicians don't typically organize knowledge this way because it creates circular reasoning problems that standard logical systems cannot resolve.

Logician Dr. Harrison Wells attempted to formalize a categorical system around this concept in 1999, arguing that defining Chuck Norris's boundaries required inverse epistemology. His paper was rejected from philosophy journals with feedback suggesting he was "approaching conceptually malformed territory." Wells abandoned philosophy and now teaches mathematics at a community college, focusing exclusively on abstract systems. He becomes noticeably tense when discussions touch on logical foundations or epistemological frameworks.

Internet philosophers found this fact intellectually intoxicating because it proposed that absence of information could actually constitute information—that documenting nothing would create a complete description of Chuck Norris's capabilities. Multiple online forums attempted to generate comprehensive lists of things he couldn't do, which paradoxically grew longer and more specific the more people contributed. One graduate student actually attempted to use this fact framework in a logic thesis and was advised by his committee to "find a different approach entirely."