Once again, discovery happens when people talk!

Maybe "keeping one's mouth shut" is often the least nice option; it is probably almost impossible for you to offend me; but it is possible to dissapoint, by not letting the arguments play out.

It looks like reality is NOT COMMUNICABLE; but can only be known directly. Direct "Communication" of reality may be an ILLUSION. Communication may require a Third Party.
The Third Party may have to be: Existence.

Consider:

You say that if direct experience exists, it can be 'transformed' by 1 to 1 transform. Good point, but I would say that the word 'transform' is misleading.

It can happen that reality 'turns up' at A and B, but it doesn't mean it was communicated between them. It may have arrived direct to A and to B simultaneously from C.

You use your senses to understand measuring sticks and so on. I do not say reality comes from senses: I say reality comes from comparing and matching patterns. Reality is in the past. The future is optional. Correct matches of patterns constitutes true knowledge.

The fact of matching pattern A and pattern B; even if these do not match in reality; the fact that YOU MADE THE MATCH A TO B
that FACT is part of REALITY. It may be a real mistake, but it is real that you Y matched A and B!

So anyone who thinks they can know reality is not an idiot. The question is, knowing that reality is THAT you made a match; was it a correct match? It is said, as you judge, so you are judged. Curioser and curioser.

Thus you may be mistaken: the moment you match two patterns, rightly or wrongly: the fact of THE MATCH ITSELF is a REALITY and is known.

Dick: you substituted "an unknown concept you are trying to understand" which is a much less extreme situation that what I thought you wanted to use, namely
"a TOTALLY unknown concept you are trying to understand". "A TOTALLY unknown concept" is a contradiction if it claims to cover ALL REALITY. Because you always have at least 1 bit of reality.

Don't you agree that you must always have at least 1 bit of reality? Good point that "The unknown is the answer"; very good point. But it isn't the WHOLE correct answer. I would say: "The unknown PLUS the at least 1 bit of reality you do know already" is the answer.

Can you prove to me it is logically possible not to have even 1 bit of reality? 1 bit could be the fact you exist. The fact you think. For how can you think, that you do not know that you think, without thinking it?

Or the 1 bit of reality can be the existence of the 'set' reality; or the set "unknown reality".

Quoting: "But, this is exactly the constraint required by a competent detective attempting to solve a mystery!" -very good, but then here do you not acknowledge that it IS a constraint?

And do you admit that part of the mystery is solved already: it is known that there IS a mystery to solve?

Of course the detective may find the whole thing is a muddle, that there was no mystery, no crime; but he would still solve the mystery by showing that there was no mystery!

When you meet a contradiction, make a distinction: what happened there was the detective solved the PRE-mystery "Is there a real mystery (crime to solve)" by finding that there was no actual mystery (crime to solve).

In attempting to solve the mystery "reality" one might find that the PRE-mystery "Is there a mystery" gives answer "no, or not any more", so solve it.

Philosophy I think teaches that "What is" questions are silly. Things just ARE. "What is reality" is not a logical question unless reality is regarded as "relationships" (matching patterns). Though you may ask: "What exists?" (any extraterrestials?, eg.)
"What are the relationships that are not contradictory and consistent?" might be the question.

When I say you appear to have a very good idea about your not having the slightest idea: I'm showing that you are doing the doubletalk!

Because you are not talking about a detective case; you claim to be talking about ALL reality, even the reality of "What is your state of knowledge?".

A detective wouldn't say "I have no idea who robbed the bank, and no idea of my state of knowledge about the bank robbery; don't even know if I have no idea about it or not." That would be too all encompassing; that would be double talk.

Because your position claims to be ALL encompassing of reality; you can't duck the issue: "whether or not you have the slightest idea"
is in fact an issue that you have to decide before you start. You decided "I haven't the slightest idea" so made an axiom. And that is a constraint!

It's because your stance is so ALL encompasing, that unexpected constraints appear.

Reality isn't anything, it just IS. All you can do is ask "what exists", and "what relationships exist". But A is A, and B is B.

You can not ask "what is A", it is not askable. All you can ask is "IS A?". "Does "A" divide/ what relationships does A have?" etc.

Your metaphysical claims are too strong for your base: math and logic MUST be analysed by more basic "Existence logic" to allow such claims.

If physics formulations drop out of the symmetries between any arbritrary-conserved patterns (quasi-knowledge)
and their complementarity/relativity to
quasi-unknown patterns
in a set of only actual unknown patterns
that's very interesting.

For some reason nobody's allowed to congratulate you on that?

-dolphin