k. I gotcha. It's like Newton. Newton's Inertia had two
  components to it: an internal causation and an external
  causation. Later scientists removed the internal causation and
  now the causation for inertia is purely external. So, what
  happened to the internal causation? It was there with Newton. It
  was there when it was the concept of impetus. It was there with
  Aquinas. So, we lost it along the way. == You don't have to
  shout it. Ok, so it's the unknowable unknowns. I'm iffy on the
  unknowable unknowns. I'm ok with the idea that it's _possible_
  that Y is entirely unknowable ever, at the same time, I find it
  necessary to believe from a pragmatic standpoint, that it _could
  be_, because there is the danger of "stopping short" of
  discovery. == I'm ok with being wrong. Again, no need to shout.
  I'm a reasonable human being here. I find what you have to say
  interesting. But the shouting is offputting. == ok. Then we use
  Y as a synonym for a number of words currently in use,
  simplifying the language and discussion and removing a lot of
  the baggage that goes with currently used terms. == I 'got' that
  a while back in the discussion but I was trying to clarify a
  little better what you were shooting for. Unknowable Unknowns
  and all their synonyms. I was including potentially knowable
  unknowns and you clarified. Just please, no more shouting. == I
  use "I don't know" for that. I can also use "Y". If you wish to
  universalize it, I'm ok with "Nobody can ever know", even though
  I may not refer to it that way myself. == So, "Solve for Y"
  becomes the never-ending quest of mathematicians worldwide, the
  squaring of the circle of the 21st century. It could work. ==
  It's like trying to get beyond the axiom/proof system. You got
  the axioms and the proofs they support. But what's behind the
  axioms? Y do they work so well? And that would be the answer. Y
  is Y. == I can see how Jonathan would see that: The beginning of
  the thread, Y wasn't clarified yet. It appeared to be a generic
  "balance". That's what I thought it was. But no, Y is something
  specific he had in mind. ===