This note as with the others is not intended to stand alone, some of the terms and ideas used are defined and discussed in the papers.

Imagine a moving motor vehicle. Now imagine we extract a concept from the motor vehicle where we conceptualize the relationship between the position of the accelerator and the speed of the front wheels. Under the rules of the knowledge as outlined the concept can be put as follows.

We can call this the hypothesis. Both position and speed fit the requirements for systems of variables, and the arrow describes an immediate effect relationship assuming that is all we knew.

In fact we know that it is not an immediate effect, but is in fact an ultimate effect. We know this because the rule of relations is obeyed, that is we can see both the vehicle and the concept we abstracted from the vehicle that we call the hypothesis.

In more general terms we can see the hypothesis and the mechanistic system in which the hypothesis is embedded. Because of this we can say we understand (see the papers for the description and definition of understanding) hypothesis, and do not merely have knowledge of the hypothesis.

We do not really need to use the full hypothesis, and the argument will stand using only one of the variables.

Now imagine a photon. The rule of relations is no longer obeyed, we cannot see nor understand the background from which the variable photon is abstracted. We do not know the nature of the mechanistic system in which the photon is embedded. In fact, much interpretation has it that there is no such, that the photon has propensities and is understood in terms of those, and that quantum physics grasps those propensities.

Within the general theory of knowledge developed at this site a photon stands in the same relation to Reality as the position above stands in relation to a motor vehicle. Both are variables, we have knowledge of both, that is can measure them identify their properties etc, but we have understanding of only one of them, that is because only the hypothesis as defined above can be related to other knowledge, and in this relating to other knowledge then we come to understand the hypothesis.

The photon is regarded as at the limit of knowledge because there is no relating of the photon to the mechanistic structure whereby we can understand the photon.

Now perhaps there is no such, but all science to date has uncovered mechanisms. If we have not in say 5000 years, then perhaps I would recant, conceding reluctantly that there are no such. Today, assuming there are no such will merely delay their uncovering.