"Not yet known" and "not yet formed" are different—distinguishing the unknown from the pre-meaning.

Most of the unknown is already above the coordinates.

We don't have enough information. We haven't observed them yet. If we investigate these issues, they will be resolved. In philosophy, we call these unknown phenomena "epistemological unknowns." They are a kind of gap where the world has the answer and we don't have enough knowledge to keep up.

Hypotheses and assumptions are on the same side as the facts. Hypotheses already take on a form of meaning. It is precisely because they have a form that we can indicate in advance what facts will be mistaken if we observe them; this is the nature of verification, and the process of verification begins.

Implicit knowledge, hidden variables, and measurement errors remain unchanged. Even if the name is not attached, it is already determined which framework it fits into. Once it is called “error,” it is no longer within the framework.

── It's not that I don't understand; it's just that it hasn't been filled in.

In the terminology of extended complex theory, all of these belong to the real dimension (D). The real dimension is the whole of those things that take on meaning and have a position above the coordinates of the description. The location is fixed. What is not fixed is only the values that enter it.

Therefore, working to investigate, experiment, and reason works. Most of the things we say “don’t know” in everyday life belong to this category. As long as there are established procedures, there’s no need to worry.

Layers that lack a place to be placed

Separately, there are layers that have not yet emerged in terms of meaning. The theory treats this as a non-meaningful structure (iD), defined as “a structural surplus that remains without meaning, non-manifest, and undefined.” Structural surplus refers to the part that always remains outside the description, no matter how precisely it is described.

This layer does not appear when examined. Even when reasoning, it cannot reach it. That is because the process of reasoning itself is carried out using existing coordinate systems. No matter how carefully one explores within the coordinate system, one cannot step outside of it.

By "not yet formed," here I do not mean "something that is scheduled to be formed eventually." Future possibilities also take on a meaningful form at the time of imagining, entering the real dimension. The virtual dimension is not a list of such contents. No matter what content is included, it remains structurally present as an excess.

Therefore, what is contained within this layer cannot even say what it does not know. It remains only as a stumbling point, without taking on the form of a question. When we try to put it into words, it is forced into the existing patterns of expression, and at that point it becomes something different from what it was before.

── When mixed together, you end up doing the wrong thing.

Treating something that isn’t buried as a mystery only leads to a detour. You just need to do your research normally.

Conversely, even if we continue to investigate things that have not yet been formed, it will only take time. No matter how much data we collect, we will never be able to find a place to store it. What is needed is not to find the answer, but to expand the range of what can be handled. Mathematics, by simply extending a single axis that intersects the real number line, has given solutions to equations that had previously been unsolvable. Expanding the framework often requires a minimum of effort.

The distinction is simple and fine. If you can formulate the question in a form that allows for both, then the former; if not, then the latter. If the former, then investigate; if not, then leave it alone. The length of time it can be left alone will eventually determine the scope of what can be handled.

↓For those who want to know more, check out "θ-galleries" now↓

↓Related articles are here↓

↓ Latest articles are here ↓

Frequently Asked Questions