The Philosophical implications of Multiverse Theory?

[PsychoSarah]

I agree, not knowing is the reason to question. However, we are free to either assume God or not. If we assume God and God is correct then this truth would logically be revealed to us by God, if He so pleases to reveal Himself to us.

If we assume God is the wrong answer, then we should expect a different truth to be revealed that is not God.

If a different truth is revealed to us, we are free to question where this truth came from, in order to get to the real truth and not just rely on what people are telling us is "the truth".



Right, my definition of God would logically be very different from the actual nature of God as experienced from God's own perspective. This is because I am not God and I could never fully understand God's way of being. Just like we may never fully understand why or how the universe came to be, but at least we can question why or how it came to be, assuming there is a truth that can be comprehended by us.

No, I mean your definition of God doesn't inherently include intelligence or intent, so that it might as well be natural processes.

You are free to assume God, but doing it is unscientific, given the lack of evidence for it.

 

[Michael]

What special rules exactly?

How about the claim that "space expands", but not in any labs on Earth, not in our solar system, not in our galaxy, not even in our galaxy cluster, but only in some mythical nether region of space, where humans can never go, and then somehow there is too little light, neutrinos, plasma, dust and mass/energy to hold it together. Only in special places where humans can never even hope to go does this space expansion "property" even apply!

DM has to experience longevity like ordinary matter, but it has to be "invisible" to all wavelengths of light, except when it supposedly emits either gamma rays or x-rays depending on which claim you believe.

The list of special pleading is virtually commonplace in all astronomy theories, EU/PC theory being the one exception to that rule.

Of the things you have listed, the only one I know hasn't been observed either directly or indirectly in a conclusive way is dark energy, which while working well with the model of the universe when implemented, there is a decent chance it does not exist, so doubting it is reasonable.

DM hasn't been observed 'directly' even after spending billions of dollars on various experiments. It was also based upon the premise that the mainstream was correctly estimating baryonic mass in 2006, which has since been shown to be a false assumption.

Dark energy was "assumed" based upon another "assumption" about SN1A events all being exactly the same, and that "assumption" has since been shown to be false as well.

Don't even get me started about Guth and inflation, M-Theory, or Multiverse theory. They can be fine tuned to do anything and everything and every property is entirely ad-hoc simply to get some fit to a known observation.

Which I can say about a lot of physics. Our understanding of that topic is highly limited, so it isn't uncommon for the mainstream ideas to be completely discarded within a few years. However, no evidence for deities exists at all, something every one of those things on that list has some of.

Even the concept of "evidence" takes on a whole new meaning to atheists as it relates to the topic of God, vs. the meaning of that term in the realm of "science". Science often presumes a "cause" based strictly upon an "effect", whereas atheists require empirical cause/effect evidence as it relates to the topic of God, and typically only that topic.

I didn't say anything about energy. I brought up time and space specifically, but otherwise, I didn't specify. Etc. doesn't stand for literally everything.

You may not have said anything about energy, but the laws of physics do say something about energy, specifically that it cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. That's pretty much a "guarantee" from the halls of physics that "spacetime" has always existed.

I am not saying that the universe came from nothing, but technically, since our physics didn't exist prior to the expansion of the Big Bang, it is entirely possible that events that would completely defy physics as we understand them would happen "prior" to the existence of time and space.

You cannot know that GR theory didn't apply prior to any "bang", particularly if it involved any energy. The mere existence of energy necessitates/causes spacetime and spacetime curvature. Even photons generate "spacetime curvature".

Also, creation implies a creator, something I most certainly am not doing. I am stating this all as a natural process. BTW, where do you think God comes from exactly?

For all I know both God and(as) the physical universe have existed eternally. I can't say where anything ultimately comes from. It would be pure speculation actually.

I not only can disagree with Einstein, but it is reasonable for me to. Much of his understanding of physics turned out to be flawed, and much of what he regarded as garbage gained evidence to support it later on.

Hmmm. I would argue that the opposite is true. Simplified models of GR theory have been demonstrated empirically. Some concepts like "space expansion" can be "added to" that simplified model, but it may not actually occur in nature, and it wouldn't have any effect on the legitimacy of the simplified version to begin with. I think the jury is out in terms of whether he made any serious mistakes with GR.

Einstein did have a problem with QM, particularly with respect to 'randomness', but it was also outside the scope of his specific area of expertise.

 

[Michael]

No, I mean your definition of God doesn't inherently include intelligence or intent, so that it might as well be natural processes.

Unless you can scientifically rule out Pantheism/Panentheism, that remains a scientific possibility.

You are free to assume God, but doing it is unscientific, given the lack of evidence for it.

You're wrong on both counts. Humans have been writing about something called "God" having a tangible effect on their lives since the dawn of human history, whereas no photon has ever claimed that "dark energy/matter" did it. In science, the "effect" is the evidence, and the "cause" is simply *assumed*. It's absolutely a "scientific" assumption.

 

[Chriliman]

No, I mean your definition of God doesn't inherently include intelligence or intent, so that it might as well be natural processes.

Is it true that you don't know if natural process are inherently intelligent? Just because you and all biological life before you have some degree of intelligence does not mean intelligence didn't exist before all biological life on earth. For instance, we know information is stored in our DNA, but we don't know how or why it's there, but we know information comes from intelligence. This has interesting implications.

You are free to assume God, but doing it is unscientific, given the lack of evidence for it.

Consider who is telling you that assuming God is unscientific and consider what actually passes as evidence. For me, a reasonable explanation is evidence of truth. At least enough evidence to get me to investigate and find out more.

To say we all rely on solid physical/tangible evidence in order to believe something is quite simply untrue.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Is it true that you don't know if natural process are inherently intelligent? Just because you and all biological life before you have some degree of intelligence does not mean intelligence didn't exist before all biological life on earth. For instance, we know information is stored in our DNA, but we don't know how or why it's there, but we know information comes from intelligence. This has interesting implications.



Consider who is telling you that assuming God is unscientific and consider what actually passes as evidence. For me, a reasonable explanation is evidence of truth. At least enough evidence to get me to investigate and find out more.

To say we all rely on solid physical/tangible evidence in order to believe something is quite simply untrue.

If you don't consider a sentient pinecone as being a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe, then God isn't either, because those two concepts equally have no evidence to support them, and they are equally reasonable. Additionally, I never said everyone relies upon tangible evidence, but to not rely on it is, by definition, unscientific.

Also, calling the genes in DNA information is a linguistic error. Saying it is read is also the same sort of error. Chemicals react to each other. DNA is just a very large molecule with many spots on it certain proteins and other molecules react to.

 

[Chriliman]

If you don't consider a sentient pinecone as being a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe, then God isn't either, because those two concepts equally have no evidence to support them, and they are equally reasonable. Additionally, I never said everyone relies upon tangible evidence, but to not rely on it is, by definition, unscientific.

Is relying on reasonable explanations as evidence of truth, scientific?

Also, calling the genes in DNA information is a linguistic error. Saying it is read is also the same sort of error. Chemicals react to each other. DNA is just a very large molecule with many spots on it certain proteins and other molecules react to.

Doesn't it take intelligence to say something is in error? How then do cells detect errors/problems and find unwanted viruses in the body and tell other cells to attack?

You see, you are presenting a "truth" to me and I'm investigating this "truth" that you've presented and determining if it's reliable or even logical. Your answers will help me decide.

 

[Michael]

Additionally, I never said everyone relies upon tangible evidence, but to not rely on it is, by definition, unscientific.

I think you'll ultimately need to define the term "tangible evidence", not so much in your own field of expertise, but as it relates to big and little hypothesis in "science". Are you insisting that there is any actual "tangible" evidence of exotic forms of matter beyond the standard particle physics model?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think you'll ultimately need to define the term "tangible evidence", not so much in your own field of expertise, but as it relates to big and little hypothesis in "science". Are you insisting that there is any actual "tangible" evidence of exotic forms of matter beyond the standard particle physics model?

Dark matter bends light, so we can see it through the distortion it causes in images. If you disagree, you need an alternative explanation for the distortion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Is relying on reasonable explanations as evidence of truth, scientific?

Depends on what your definition of "reasonable" is. Chances are, what you find reasonable and what I find reasonable are not the same, hence why something you feel is completely legitimate can seem like absolute hogwash to me. However, science has a standard for it, which deities, unmeasurable as they are, do not meet.

Doesn't it take intelligence to say something is in error? How then do cells detect errors/problems and find unwanted viruses in the body and tell other cells to attack?

Chemical reaction, not thought. At least, not thought in the way you want to think of it.

You see, you are presenting a "truth" to me and I'm investigating this "truth" that you've presented and determining if it's reliable or even logical. Your answers will help me decide.

Well, decide if you think I am logical or not, which is hardly an authority on the matter. If you are the illogical one out of the two of us, not only will your evaluation of me be meaningless, but the fact that you placed yourself in that position will be a farce.

Even if I am illogical, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to tell. Simply that I do not agree with you on everything certainly isn't an indicator of being illogical, because disagreement isn't inherently illogical.

 

[Chriliman]

Depends on what your definition of "reasonable" is. Chances are, what you find reasonable and what I find reasonable are not the same, hence why something you feel is completely legitimate can seem like absolute hogwash to me. However, science has a standard for it, which deities, unmeasurable as they are, do not meet.

I prefer to define terms in the most common sense and simplest way possible because that is reasonable to do, but I can't control whether you agree or not.

Chemical reaction, not thought. At least, not thought in the way you want to think of it.

So thought is not chemical reactions?

Maybe it depends on what one believes thought is.

I believe thought is a gift from God to help us understand His truth and He created our brains in such a way to allow complex chemical reactions to drive the process of thought.

Apparently you don't believe thought is chemical reactions, so what do you believe thought is?

If you say chemical reactions, then you'll understand why I think you're contradicting yourself and you'll understand why I can't trust the "truth" you're presenting to me, even though your unintentionally presenting it.

Well, decide if you think I am logical or not, which is hardly an authority on the matter. If you are the illogical one out of the two of us, not only will your evaluation of me be meaningless, but the fact that you placed yourself in that position will be a farce.

Even if I am illogical, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to tell. Simply that I do not agree with you on everything certainly isn't an indicator of being illogical, because disagreement isn't inherently illogical.

It's not difficult to see where someone is potentially contradicting themselves, but getting them to realize it, is very difficult.

In general, I think you are a very logical person. However, you clearly are not sure what thought is and that's okay

 

[Michael]

Dark matter bends light, so we can see it through the distortion it causes in images. If you disagree, you need an alternative explanation for the distortion.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

If you take a look at the revelations since 2006, they've since discovered that they underestimated the number of stars in galaxies by an unbelievable factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. They also underestimated the number of stars *between* galaxies within the galaxies clusters, and they underestimated the amount of plasma around every galaxy to boot.

All you can "scientifically" claim is that "ordinary" matter bends light. The term "dark matter" is simply way too vague, and more pseudoscience than actual physics. Their mathematical models were tried out in various labs on Earth, and each and every one has been falsified to date.

The evidence is quite clear that the mainstream simply underestimated the amount of ordinary baryonic matter in their primitive and flawed galaxy mass estimates of 2006. There was never any evidence of "dark matter" in 2006, just evidence that they needed to go back to the drawing board in terms of their baryonic mass estimates. Many studies since 2006 demonstrate that point over and over and over again.

We'd be far better off spending money on reconstructing Birkeland's empirical lab work using updated technologies. We've already spent billions on a dark matter snipe hunt. It's time to look for empirical alternatives to Lambda-CDM.

 

[Michael]

Depends on what your definition of "reasonable" is. Chances are, what you find reasonable and what I find reasonable are not the same, hence why something you feel is completely legitimate can seem like absolute hogwash to me. However, science has a standard for it, which deities, unmeasurable as they are, do not meet.

Define "unmeasurable". At the largest and smallest scales "science" does not require a direct cause/effect demonstration of claim. No photon ever claimed "dark stuff did it" with respect to any effect on a photon. There's never been a demonstration of cause/effect claim with respect to exotic particle physical models, QM concepts of gravity, etc. Only when it relates to the topic of God do atheists tend to require a purely empirical standard, and 'personal testimony' doesn't matter.

Certainly more humans throughout recorded human history have described the effect of a "higher power" of some sort on their lives. No photon ever gave personal testimony that exotic matter bends light, or "space expansion" is the cause of photon redshift.

What exactly do you mean by unmeasurable, and what makes you think science requires a direct cause/effect demonstration of claim outside of a highly established branch of physics/chemistry like biology or circuit theory?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I prefer to define terms in the most common sense and simplest way possible because that is reasonable to do, but I can't control whether you agree or not.

It's fair to try that, but language will not always be that nice.

So thought is not chemical reactions?

Maybe it depends on what one believes thought is.

I believe thought is a gift from God to help us understand His truth and He created our brains in such a way to allow complex chemical reactions to drive the process of thought.

Apparently you don't believe thought is chemical reactions, so what do you believe thought is?

If you say chemical reactions, then you'll understand why I think you're contradicting yourself and you'll understand why I can't trust the "truth" you're presenting to me, even though your unintentionally presenting it.

Personally, I view thought as a series of chemical reactions, and there is a specific range they must fall into to qualify as thought. So, a cell reacting to damage by repairing it would not qualify as thought to me. However, given that this is more of a philosophical thing than a scientific one, I wouldn't consider my position to be better than any other logical one. Since your definition of thought is contingent upon the existence of a deity, a variable which may or may not exist, I would be skeptical of those components, but otherwise, our ideas about what thought is seem to be very similar.

It's not difficult to see where someone is potentially contradicting themselves, but getting them to realize it, is very difficult.

In general, I think you are a very logical person. However, you clearly are not sure what thought is and that's okay

Have I been contradicting myself? I don't recall doing so, or any instance of you pointing it out.

I am never sure about anything that abstract, but I do have a personal definition of thought. Actually, I probably have a few context dependent ones.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Define "unmeasurable". At the largest and smallest scales "science" does not require a direct cause/effect demonstration of claim. No photon ever claimed "dark stuff did it" with respect to any effect on a photon. There's never been a demonstration of cause/effect claim with respect to exotic particle physical models, QM concepts of gravity, etc. Only when it relates to the topic of God do atheists tend to require a purely empirical standard, and 'personal testimony' doesn't matter.

I am a biology major, not a physics major. I give a great deal of doubt to pretty much all things physics, I just don't find most of your alternative ideas to the mainstream to be all that great. Physical properties of the universe are measured directly when one measures their influence on matter and energy, so I don't see how that isn't empirical. Also, given that you have expressed such an issue with a perceived lack of empiricalness in physics, I don't see why you make exceptions for god. Your argument is more for doubting physics than giving the existence of god any credence.

Certainly more humans throughout recorded human history have described the effect of a "higher power" of some sort on their lives. No photon ever gave personal testimony that exotic matter bends light, or "space expansion" is the cause of photon redshift.

Witness accounts have been demonstrated countless times to be unreliable, and the sense of a "higher power" cannot be measured in that we can't measure what they claim to be sensing. This psychological phenomenon can even be artificially induced with the power of suggestion. There is no reason to think that these claims are reliable evidence for deities of any sort. Also, we know how normal matter will bend light, should it be in such a perspective to do so. Our observations of how dark matter does it don't match any known regular matter, and how many elements we know of make it unlikely for the cause to be some unknown element of regular matter. But, what puzzles me is how you doubt the existence of dark matter so much, and yet presume that a belief in deities is more logical.

What exactly do you mean by unmeasurable, and what makes you think science requires a direct cause/effect demonstration of claim outside of a highly established branch of physics/chemistry like biology or circuit theory?

I am, by practice, a biologist. But, I recognize indirect cause and effect, and if you do as well, how the heck is dark matter so illogical to you?

 

[Michael]

I am a biology major, not a physics major. I give a great deal of doubt to pretty much all things physics, I just don't find most of your alternative ideas to the mainstream to be all that great.

Well, EU/PC theory is "great", primarily in the sense that it is strictly based upon empirical cause/effect demonstrations of "evidence", and it's core tenets work in the lab as Birkeland demonstrated. In that sense it's also better than most other hypothetical areas of physics.

Physical properties of the universe are measured directly when one measures their influence on matter and energy, so I don't see how that isn't empirical.

We can count the number of human beings that have written about something they call "God", and it's influence on their lives. We can measure things like that. Likewise, we can measure the amount of lensing that is occurring in spacetime, but it tells us nothing about the nature of the mass that is doing the lensing without making a host of assumptions related to the accuracy of our mass estimates.

Also, given that you have expressed such an issue with a perceived lack of empiricalness in physics, I don't see why you make exceptions for god.

Actually, I don't necessarily make that specific exception as it relates to the topic of God, although admittedly there may be another explanation for God than the one that I personally prefer (a purely empirical one).

Your argument is more for doubting physics than giving the existence of god any credence.

Well, it's more than that. Actually there's an important distinction as it relates to the concept of cause/effect demonstrations of evidence as it is used in 'science' as a whole (not just in biology). There's an issue here related to empirically demonstrating the cause/effect claim being made in "science". Science outside of biology and circuit theory uses much more "lax" standards of evidence. You cannot therefore run around claiming that belief in God is an "unscientific" position or an unscientific belief.

For instance, in expansion theories of the universe, only photon redshift is "observed" on Earth. There are various subjective ways to "interpret" that observation of photon redshift. Hubble himself preferred a tired light explanation to that phenomenon.

Somewhere at it's limits, both at the largest and smallest scales, the effect itself becomes the evidence, but there is no certain control mechanism to empirically demonstrate the cause/effect relationship.

One can demonstrate an empirical cause effect relationship between inelastic scattering in the lab, and tangible amounts of photon redshift in the lab. One cannot however demonstrate that space does any expansion tricks in a lab, or that "space expansion" has any tangible/empirical effect on a photon.

One "claimed cause" for the "effect" of photon redshift can be directly linked to an empirical cause in a lab (inelastic scattering), whereas the other "claimed cause" cannot be directly demonstrated in a lab, and is more of an "act of faith" in a process that cannot occur on Earth.

Witness accounts have been demonstrated countless times to be unreliable, and the sense of a "higher power" cannot be measured in that we can't measure what they claim to be sensing.

Well, maybe that will change as we better study the effects on the brain of meditation, and have made more scientific attempts to image such a "sense of a higher power" while individuals are undergoing real time brain scans. Humans convey a lot of information non verbally, which is why online communication can lead to so much confusion.

This psychological phenomenon can even be artificially induced with the power of suggestion. There is no reason to think that these claims are reliable evidence for deities of any sort.

The same criticism might apply to one's "faith" (or lack thereof) in concepts like space expansion. If you don't buy the power of the Jedi mind trick based upon the power of suggestion, you don't really see much empirically demonstrated reason to put much credence in ideas like space expansion.

It's also technically impossible to go by one's own personal experiences (or lack thereof) in personal experiences of God, anymore than it would be feasible to "assume" that everyone that claims to observe a kangaroo in the 19th century was necessarily crazy simply because you'd personally never seen one.

Also, we know how normal matter will bend light, should it be in such a perspective to do so.

Ok.

Our observations of how dark matter does it don't match any known regular matter, and how many elements we know of make it unlikely for the cause to be some unknown element of regular matter.

Actually no. Any type of ordinary matter bends light, and we now know that they simply underestimated the amount of stars and other ordinary plasma in those galaxy clusters. Astronomers simply assumed their mass estimates were correct in 2006, but they were not even in the right ballpark.

But, what puzzles me is how you doubt the existence of dark matter so much, and yet presume that a belief in deities is more logical.

Technically Panentheism (my preferred definition of God) requires no exotic forms of matter, no exotic forms of energy, nothing particularly exotic in terms of ascribing awareness to the universe itself that isn't repeated here on Earth in countless forms all over this planet.

In terms of exotic matter claims, *all known* matter bends light. Their baryonic mass "guestimates" in 2006 were riddled with countless flaws, and they simply weren't even in the right ballpark in terms of the amount of ordinary plasma that they were looking at. Any ordinary form of plasma would do the trick in terms of the lensing data, and with 20/20 hindsight we now know that they botched the stellar mass estimates by between 3 and 20 times.

One can technically hold belief in a purely empirical definition of God *as the physical universe*, and there is still no requirement for anything that cannot be "seen" or experienced right here on Earth. I don't even need "dark" anything to hold faith in an empirical definition of the term God, and I simply see no evidence of long lived "cold dark matter" particles from the lab, or from observations from space.

I am, by practice, a biologist. But, I recognize indirect cause and effect, and if you do as well, how the heck is dark matter so illogical to you?

The "effect" of this hypothetical particle is "assumed". In other words you assume it causes photons to be "curved" by the mass your hypothetical invisible thing, but somehow light magically passes through it unscathed. No hypothetical form of matter is necessary to explain lensing patterns in space, particularly now that we know how badly they botched their stellar mass estimates in 2006.

Even dark energy is based upon a now falsified premise.

If 95 percent of a theory is based upon falsified premises, it's definitely time to go back to the empirical drawing board and start over.

 

[Chriliman]

It's fair to try that, but language will not always be that nice.

Agreed.

Personally, I view thought as a series of chemical reactions, and there is a specific range they must fall into to qualify as thought. So, a cell reacting to damage by repairing it would not qualify as thought to me. However, given that this is more of a philosophical thing than a scientific one, I wouldn't consider my position to be better than any other logical one. Since your definition of thought is contingent upon the existence of a deity, a variable which may or may not exist, I would be skeptical of those components, but otherwise, our ideas about what thought is seem to be very similar.

True, our understanding of thought is very similar, the only difference is that I can explain why I'm able to think, it's because God created me to be able to think. If we take God away, then our explanation comes down to either thought coming from nothing or somehow an eternal universe was able to produce a being that can think about the eternal universe, which isn't a sufficient explanation for me, therefore I continue searching for a more refined truth in which I can trust.

Have I been contradicting myself? I don't recall doing so, or any instance of you pointing it out.

You came close because you said a cell can recognize errors based on certain complex chemical reactions, but then you said this is not thought, even though you understand thought to be based on complex chemical reactions as well. I'm just pointing out that a cell could be thinking on some lower level than that which the brain is capable of. In fact the evidence would suggest this is true, but how could we know for sure? We can't, which is why we should continue following the evidence that is pointing to a truth in which we can confidently believe and trust.

I am never sure about anything that abstract, but I do have a personal definition of thought. Actually, I probably have a few context dependent ones.

Great!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure, but this does not explain why or how the series of reactions began.

Neither does inventing an unexplainable, unsupportable, unfalsifiable deity that "dun it".

I simply refer to this force as God

Why "god"? Why not "space unicorn"?

I just call it what it really is: the unkown. I don't see the point in making stuff up.

It's a simple explanation for life

It's not an "explanation" of anything. You are using the word "god" as a placeholder for something that isn't known. It's a classic god-of-the-gaps.

 

[Michael]

Neither does inventing an unexplainable, unsupportable, unfalsifiable deity that "dun it".

Yet somehow you think it's fine to propose a "multiverse" that "dun it", or an unsupportable, unfalsifiable inflation deity "dun it"?

Why "god"? Why not "space unicorn"?

Why propose a hypothetical multiverse? Why an inflation deity that cannot even deliver homogeneity on the largest scales as "predicted" by Guth?

I just call it what it really is: the unkown. I don't see the point in making stuff up.

Psst. You're hypocrisy is showing with respect to cause/effect empirical justification.

It's not an "explanation" of anything. You are using the word "god" as a placeholder for something that isn't known. It's a classic god-of-the-gaps.

So how exactly would that empirically differ from the placeholder terms "dark energy" and "dark matter"? How are they not classic supernatural nonsense of the gaps claims and nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance?

 

[Chriliman]

Neither does inventing an unexplainable, unsupportable, unfalsifiable deity that "dun it".



Why "god"? Why not "space unicorn"?

I just call it what it really is: the unkown. I don't see the point in making stuff up.



It's not an "explanation" of anything. You are using the word "god" as a placeholder for something that isn't known. It's a classic god-of-the-gaps.

Believe whatever truth you think the evidence supports, but try not to think I'm wrong just because you perceive an unknown that can't be explained.

The reason you perceive an unexplainable unknown could be because you think I'm wrong.

I hope at some point in all our lives, we can look deep inside ourselves and truly ask "Am I wrong?". The truth will still remain the truth, whether or not we ask ourselves that question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Believe whatever truth you think the evidence supports, but try not to think I'm wrong just because you perceive an unknown that can't be explained.

When one acknowledges something as being currently unknown, one is not expressing a "belief". One is instead, acknowledging ignorance on the subject.

The reason you perceive an unexplainable unknown could be because you think I'm wrong.

No, it's because it's unknown.

I hope at some point in all our lives, we can look deep inside ourselves and truly ask "Am I wrong?". The truth will still remain the truth, whether or not we ask ourselves that question.

And when the truth is unnkown, it is unknown.