What If a Variable Is Missing?

Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

What If a Variable Is Missing?

In short:

Sometimes the problem is not that the model we have is wrong, but that a variable is missing from it. As I explored the boundaries between science, faith, and the unknown, I came to see the value of distinguishing between what we know, what we have good reason to consider likely, and what we can currently see only as possible. “I don’t know” does not necessarily have to be the end of thinking - it can be the beginning of a new question.

⚡ When Questions Open Up New Connections

Sometimes a question does not arrive as a question.

It comes in the form of a film.

A conversation.

A scientific discovery.

Or simply in the form of something we have known for years suddenly looking different one evening.

Recently, I watched The Age of Disclosure for the second time. It dealt with UAPs, advanced technology, and the possibility of non-human intelligence - subjects that have fascinated me for a long time.

But as I watched, my thoughts somehow wandered somewhere completely different.

To the Bible.

To Ezekiel’s vision.

To prophecy.

To our future.

And to the question of how much we actually understand about the universe we live in.

Not because I think that a present-day UAP phenomenon can automatically be connected to a biblical vision. We do not know that.

Rather, what happened was that a difficult-to-interpret phenomenon from our own time brought an old question back to the surface for me:

How complete is our picture of reality?

And suddenly I found myself once again at the question I have returned to again and again for decades:

What if reality is larger than what we are currently able to explain?

🧭 This Is Not How I Started

Today I believe in the God of the Bible, whose name is Jehovah.

I came to know him as the Creator of the Universe, and ever since then I have been trying to get to know him better and better.

But that is not how I started.

More than thirty years ago, I began seriously studying the Bible. At the time, I could not have known that this would be the beginning of a journey of discovery lasting several decades.

Earlier, I had also arrived at atheism, and for a long time I was far more interested in science, technology, science fiction, and the unknown than in religion.

Perhaps that is precisely why it was so interesting when the Bible began to affect me differently.

It did not simply raise new questions.

Rather, it began to shed light on more and more things.

Things I had previously treated as separate questions, or simply as mysteries that could not be answered.

As I studied more and more, I began to see connections between them.

And that process has never really stopped.

At the same time, I never stopped exploring other fields either. I am still interested in physics, biology, psychology, technology, and every field where there is something new to learn about the world.

But the Bible gave me something different.

It felt as though I had been given a key to a door I had never known existed.

And when I opened it, I did not find a single room behind it.

New worlds opened up.

I found possible answers to questions I had never expected to find a meaningful answer to.

That did not give me fewer questions.

Quite the opposite.

It gave me more.

But I was now asking them in a different space.

🐜 The Ant and the Line

Perhaps it could be compared to an ant.

Imagine an ant with someone drawing a circle around it on a sheet of paper.

I also demonstrated this experiment on video in an earlier article.

The ant starts moving, and when it reaches the line, it does not cross it.

It tries again and again to continue its journey within the same space, but for some reason it behaves as though the line were a real barrier.

Yet there is no wall.

No ditch.

No physical obstacle of any kind.

The line is simply ink on paper.

Or at least that is what we might think at first.

Because even that may not necessarily be so simple. The chemical composition of the ink, perhaps its smell, or some other property that seems insignificant to us might affect the ant.

We do not know.

But suppose that one day the ant somehow - perhaps by accident, perhaps because it approaches with too much momentum - crosses the line after all.

And nothing unusual happens.

The line does not stop it.

The ant keeps going.

That single experience could already change something in its own model of the world.

The obstacle it previously encountered may turn out not to have been a physical obstacle at all. Perhaps some sensory effect influenced its behavior. Perhaps it simply learned to avoid it. Or perhaps something entirely different happened.

But now it knows something it did not know before:

the line can be crossed.

The limitation, then, was not necessarily where it first looked for it.

Perhaps part of it was on the paper.

Perhaps part of it was in the circumstances.

But to a greater extent, it may have been in the model the ant had formed of them.

And from that point on, it no longer automatically regards as an ultimate boundary something it previously believed to be one.

Something similar happened to me.

The Bible was like being given a key to a new door - and a lamp that shows the path.

One image from the book of Psalms is especially close to my heart: God’s word is like a lamp that illuminates the way ahead of us.

A lamp does not illuminate the whole world.

It only shows what is needed for the next step.

And perhaps that is exactly what I experienced.

Not that I now know everything.

But that there is light on the path ahead of me.

🧩 I Am Not Looking for a Single Piece of Evidence

Even today, I do not think that a single discovery, a single Bible verse, or a single philosophical argument can settle the question of a Creator on its own.

I am more interested in the overall picture.

What happens if we put cosmology, biology, geology, history, philosophy, human consciousness, and what the Bible says side by side?

I do not want to force every piece of data into an explanation chosen in advance.

Rather, I want to understand:

Which worldview is capable of making sense of more things at the same time?

That does not prove anything by itself.

It is important to distinguish between evidence and explanatory power.

Something can be an interesting connection without being evidence.

And that is something I have to keep reminding myself of as well.

𝑥 The Missing Variable

There are three stories that at first may seem to have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

One is about an election, another about a video game, and the third about an airplane.

I came across them in a Veritasium video titled The Universe is Hostile to Computers. The video explains the strange ways in which high-energy particles - including particles originating from cosmic rays - can affect electronic systems.

The first story is connected to a 2003 Belgian election.

Maria Vindevogel received exactly 4,096 more votes in the computerized tally in one electoral district than the later recount showed. The number 4,096 is particularly interesting because it is 2¹². A change in a single bit in the computer system could have produced exactly that difference. The software and hardware were examined, but the original error could not be reproduced, so its exact cause remained unknown.

The second is a Super Mario 64 speedrun.

A player had Mario perform a jump that, based on normal gameplay, he should not have been able to make. The phenomenon was later connected to experiments in which similar behavior could be induced by changing a single bit. One possible explanation here as well is a so-called single-event upset: a high-energy particle may have changed a bit in memory. That does not mean that this was proven to be what happened in the specific case.

The third story concerns Qantas Flight 72.

In 2008, an Airbus A330 unexpectedly made significant nose-down movements. The investigation identified the mechanism connecting erroneous ADIRU data with the response of the flight-control system, but the possibility of a single-event effect was also considered as a possible triggering factor. However, it could not be proven that such an event was the specific trigger.

Three completely different stories.

An election result.

A video game.

A passenger aircraft.

And yet they have something in common.

A tiny, invisible event can theoretically lead to a very large consequence.

What became really interesting to me, however, was not cosmic radiation itself.

It was the idea.

What happens when a system is fundamentally working as intended, the model we have is also functional, but something suddenly happens that the model was never designed to account for?

Maybe the system is not faulty.

Maybe our model is not even wrong.

RAM, for example, is specifically designed to store and change the state of bits using electrical signals. If such a state change is caused not by the system’s normal electrical processes but by an event triggered by a high-energy particle, that does not necessarily mean the RAM itself has “broken down.” The operating principle remains the same: an external influence changes a stored state. The only difference is that the source triggering the state change was different from what we normally expect during the system’s operation.

Maybe a variable is simply missing.

And this idea took me much further than the original subject of the video.

I do not mean that every unexplained event must necessarily have some hidden or unknown factor behind it.

That conclusion would be an exaggeration as well.

Rather, I mean that we should remain open to the possibility that our current model may not necessarily be complete.

A computer system can work exactly as designed and still be affected by an external influence its designers did not account for.

And perhaps the same way of thinking applies to us.

We can have good data.

We can have good logic.

We can be genuinely curious.

And yet it may still happen that we have left out a variable from our model simply because we never considered that it existed.

Of course, that does not mean that the missing variable is automatically God.

But neither do I want “we don’t know” to automatically mean:

“There is nothing there that we have not noticed yet.”

If I believe in the God of the Bible, that does not mean I attribute every unexplained event to his direct intervention.

It does mean, however, that I do not consider the existence of a Creator ruled out from the outset simply because our current model does not contain him.

A model can be very good without being complete.

Perhaps we can approach this through a more everyday example.

When we look at a weather forecast, we know that it does not guarantee what will happen tomorrow. A forecast can be accurate, but it can also be wrong. Generally, the farther ahead we look, the greater the uncertainty.

Yet we use forecasts.

Why?

Because we are not simply looking at one isolated statement about tomorrow’s weather. We understand how forecasts work, we have seen previous results, and based on those things we decide how much confidence to place in a forecast in a given situation.

Something similar comes to mind when I think about biblical prophecies.

Naturally, when a prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, we cannot know with absolute certainty exactly how it will be realized. Before fulfillment, there is always a degree of uncertainty about precisely what we will see and how it will happen.

But if there are prophecies that have already been fulfilled, then we do not look toward the ones still ahead of us without any experience at all.

That does not mean we know every detail in advance.

Nor does it mean that every interpretation we have today is correct.

But it may mean that our confidence in the future has a foundation in the past.

I believe that the Bible comes from God. From that perspective, the ultimate source of the prophecies found in it does not change simply because they were recorded by people who lived in different periods. They may have been the instruments through which the words were recorded, but according to the Bible itself, the source of prophecy is God.

That is why, to me, trusting promises that have not yet been fulfilled does not simply mean believing in something I have not yet seen.

Rather, it means having reason to trust the one who has already made promises that were fulfilled in the past.

Of course, this does not prove in advance every precise detail of every future prophecy.

But perhaps it does represent an important distinction between blind faith and trust grounded in experience.

I do not know exactly what tomorrow will bring.

But I can still have reason to trust the one to whom tomorrow belongs.

But there is something else I find interesting here.

The books of the Bible were written by different people in different periods. Many of the later Bible writers knew the earlier writings, so it is not surprising in itself that certain themes were carried forward. That is why what interests me most is not simply when someone repeats something an earlier prophet had already written.

It is more interesting when a later prophecy adds another element that had not yet been fulfilled, perhaps revealing another aspect of the same larger sequence of events. If details written at different times later come together into a coherent picture, and some of those elements can also be examined in history, another question arises: how much of this can be explained simply by the individual writers’ knowledge, and how much by the possibility that the information had a common source?

Of course, this in itself does not force that conclusion upon anyone who sees the Bible’s origins differently. We also need to consider the writers’ knowledge of earlier writings, the historical context, and other possible explanations.

But if we are already examining whether something might exist outside our current model, then I do not think this kind of harmony should be ignored either.

I do not want to put it on the table as proof, but as data worth examining.

And if such a pattern really exists, perhaps the first question is not “Is this definitely the explanation?” but rather “What can this possibility explain that the other explanations cannot?”

🧩 What If We Start from the Present State?

Lately, many seemingly unrelated thoughts have found their way onto the table.

A scientific finding here, a historical fact there, a philosophical question, a biblical passage, a conversation, an idea I heard on a podcast. Not all of them are connected, and I do not know where every one of them belongs.

But somehow I keep playing with them.

I try putting them next to one another, turning them around, fitting them together, and seeing whether they really connect or whether I simply want to see a connection. Sometimes a new piece causes an earlier thought to appear in a completely different light. At other times, it turns out that two pieces simply do not fit.

Perhaps it is not surprising that after a while, certain patterns begin to emerge for me.

But that also reminds me that another person may construct a completely different picture of the same world.

Not necessarily because one of us is thinking badly.

It may simply be that different Lego pieces are on their table.

And that is precisely why it is particularly important to me not to confuse the picture I have assembled with reality itself.

One of these newer Lego pieces came from a conversation.

In one episode of The Diary of a CEO, Dr. Darby Saxbe talks about the biological background of human sexuality and relationships. She mentions that ovulation is less obvious in humans than in many other animals, and suggests that this may have promoted pair bonding and longer-term monogamous relationships.

It is an interesting idea, but here too it is worth pausing for a moment.

The biological phenomenon itself is one thing; an evolutionary interpretation of it is another. Such evolutionary explanations have been proposed for a connection between concealed ovulation and monogamy, but this is not a closed question. There are other possible explanations as well, and the phenomenon itself does not automatically lead to a single conclusion.

In another conversation, Jordan B. Peterson talks about humans as a species that produces relatively few offspring and requires a high level of parental investment, with children remaining highly dependent on their parents for a long time. From this he draws a conclusion about the importance of pair bonding: because parental investment is so high, cooperation between two parents may be important.

Two different ideas. Two different explanations. Neither of them proves on its own what I am taking from them.

And yet they became interesting pieces lying in front of me.

In the creation account, the Bible presents the relationship between a man and a woman as the beginning of the human family. Later biblical accounts also contain examples of polygamy, but those stories are often accompanied by conflict, jealousy, and family tensions. And when Jesus spoke about marriage, he did not go back to those later examples. He went back to “the beginning.”

Of course, this does not prove the biblical view of humanity in biological terms.

But it raised another question for me.

What if we are too quick to treat the present human condition as the starting point?

The Bible presents the human being in the creation account as originally perfect and as having entered the condition we know today as a result of sin. As a Christian, I do not treat that as an open question. I believe it.

The question for me is rather how we could demonstrate this in a way that would be compelling to everyone. And here I have to be much more cautious.

Because if we start from the present state, it is easy to assume that what we see today in human biology, behavior, or social functioning was also the original state of humanity.

But that does not necessarily follow.

If a fundamental change really did occur in human history, then our present condition may not by itself be sufficient to reconstruct the original condition.

And here the idea of the missing variable comes up again for me.

What if it is not only a variable that is missing from the model, but also an earlier state?

I am not claiming that this proves the biblical view of humanity. It does not.

What I do find interesting is that the same observation - “this is what humans are like today” - can fit into several different stories. One model simply starts from the present condition. The biblical model, however, assumes an original state followed by a change that occurred.

And if that is so, then it is worth asking:

how justified are we in automatically concluding from the present state that it has always been this way?

And perhaps there is another important distinction here that I need to keep in mind.

I believe what the Bible says about the original perfection of humanity and about the human condition having changed as a result of sin. That is not an open question for me.

But believing something does not mean that I can demonstrate it today in a way that proves it compellingly to everyone.

And I think it is worth acknowledging that.

The Bible itself speaks of things whose final recognition is tied to their fulfillment. Jehovah God, for example, says through Ezekiel:

And I will certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah. — Ezekiel 38:23, New World Translation

It does not say that everyone already knows but that “they will have to know.” When he does all of this.

That is an important reminder to me.

I can have arguments. I can have connections that I find strongly convincing. Many different Lego pieces from different fields may eventually seem to me to arrange themselves more and more into a particular picture.

But that does not mean I have to pretend that the picture has already been proven to everyone.

In fact, perhaps this is exactly where the distinction between faith, inference, and certainty becomes truly important.

Today I believe that humanity was originally perfect.

But I do not claim that, based on our current knowledge, I can prove it in such a way that a person who believes otherwise would have no questions left.

Nor do I think the other side has proven the opposite simply by showing what humans are like today.

We may have good arguments in one direction or the other.

We may have explanations that seem very strong.

But there are things for which the final answer may perhaps be provided not by another theory, but by reality itself unfolding.

And this brings another thought to mind - one that serves as an important counterbalance to this whole process of thinking for me.

Paul asked:

For who makes you different from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not receive it? — 1 Corinthians 4:7, New World Translation

To me, this does not mean that we should not think, investigate, or try to understand the world.

Rather, it reminds me that just because I see a certain picture taking shape, I have not become the owner of that picture.

I may have good observations. I may connect some things correctly. I may notice something before others do.

But whatever I know, I have also received in some way: the ability to think, my experiences, information, and the opportunity to ask questions and learn.

That is why I do not want to say: “I put the picture together, therefore I am right.”

Maybe I simply have more pieces in front of me.

Maybe someone else has different pieces.

Maybe they see a connection I do not.

Maybe I have connected pieces that do not actually belong together.

And perhaps neither of our pictures is complete.

That is probably why it matters to me that even if more and more things seem to point in a certain direction, that should not make me proud.

If more Lego pieces seem to point me toward God than they did before, that does not mean I am somehow better than someone who does not see the same thing yet.

Perhaps I have simply had different experiences, different questions, and different pieces placed on my table.

I do not keep looking for connections because I do not believe, but because I want what I believe to be in harmony with the truth.

And at the same time, I know that the picture I see is not yet reality in its entirety.

Some pieces may still be missing.

Perhaps that is exactly why it is worth continuing to play.

Because the human brain is an extraordinary tool.

With it, we do mathematics, discover the laws of nature, create technology, write music, and ask the question of why we are here.

But that same brain can see patterns where there is no real connection.

It can defend its own beliefs.

It can notice what confirms them.

So for me, the question is not simply:

“Can I find connections?”

It is:

“Is the connection really there, or do I simply want to see it there?”

That is why it matters to me to pay attention to my own blind spots even alongside my faith.

I do not want to constantly question my faith.

But I do want to question my own interpretations.

If I have misunderstood something, I want to notice.

If I have read too much into a text, I want to recognize it.

If a scientific discovery turns out not to mean what I initially thought it meant, I want to accept that.

🔍 Make Sure of All Things

Perhaps that is also why one of the principles expressed by the apostle Paul is so dear to me:

Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. — 1 Thessalonians 5:21, New World Translation

It does not mean that we should accept everything.

Nor does it mean that we should reject everything that seems strange at first.

It means:

examine it.

Ask questions.

Compare.

Think.

And then hold on to what is good.

To me, this is an approach in which conviction and curiosity can exist side by side.

🔬 Science, Faith, and the Unknown

Science continues to fascinate me.

Biology.

Biochemistry.

Physics.

Cosmology.

Neuroscience.

Psychology.

The more I learn, the less I feel that the world is simple.

And this has not pushed me away from the idea of a Creator.

In a sense, quite the opposite.

Understanding how nature works does not diminish wonder.

It increases it.

But I do not want to use science to prove things it is not equipped to prove.

Science is an extraordinarily powerful tool for understanding how the world works.

“Why does anything exist at all?” or “Does existence have an ultimate purpose?” are different kinds of questions.

I do not want to mix them together.

Nor am I saying that science cannot contribute important parts of our answers to such questions.

Only that not every question is of the same kind.

∞ The Idea of Eternity

Perhaps that is also why a thought from the book of Ecclesiastes resonates with me so strongly. In the New World Translation, I read:

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish. — Ecclesiastes 3:11, New World Translation

This verse expresses a particularly interesting duality for me.

On the one hand, there is the idea of eternity within us.

On the other hand, there are the limits of our understanding.

It is as though something has been built into human beings that reaches beyond the present moment. We are not satisfied with knowing what is happening now. We want to understand where we came from, where we are going, why anything exists at all, and how all of this fits into a larger whole.

At the same time, the verse says that we will never find out everything that God has done “from start to finish.”

To me, this does not mean giving up on understanding.

Quite the opposite.

Perhaps it means that our curiosity can be greater than our present ability to see everything at once.

And there is something deeply human about that.

We investigate because we want to understand.

We ask questions because we want to connect the details.

We create ever more tools so that we can see farther, dig deeper, and measure more precisely.

And perhaps we should also accept that the boundary of our understanding of reality does not necessarily lie where our current capacity for knowing ends.

This is a particularly important thought for me.

Because in that sense, ignorance is not necessarily a wall.

It can also be a door.

“I don’t know” does not necessarily mean there is no answer.

It can simply mean:

“I do not see it yet.”

And perhaps that is exactly why I find it so exciting to keep exploring—in science, history, philosophy, and the Bible alike.

Not because I think I will understand everything.

But because I believe it is worth continuing - right up to wherever the light reaches.

📡 The Movie Contact

And perhaps this is exactly where the story of the movie Contact becomes interesting to me as well.

Ellie Arroway wants evidence.

She does not simply want to believe.

She wants to know.

And when she returns from her journey, she finds herself in a strange situation.

She remembers spending many hours on a journey that felt completely real to her.

To the outside world, however, everything seemed to have ended almost instantaneously.

The capsule does not contain a recording that simply shows what Ellie experienced.

At first glance, then, it seems as though no evidence remains.

But then there is the recording.

The static noise captured by the camera lasts for roughly 18 hours - about as long as Ellie says she spent traveling, while only a few seconds passed for the outside world.

That alone does not clearly prove Ellie’s story.

But something happened to the recording that needs to be explained.

And to me, that is a very interesting distinction.

It is not the same thing to say:

“There is no evidence.”

as to say:

“The evidence available to us does not clearly prove the claim.”

There is a huge difference between the two.

And of course there is a third possibility as well: we may have evidence of something that is interesting in itself but not yet strong enough to accept the explanation attached to it.

That distinction matters to me.

Palmer Joss, Ellie’s old friend, eventually says that he believes her.

Not because he is able to reconstruct what happened.

Not because the scientific evidence clearly verified Ellie’s account.

But because he knows her.

He knows her personality.

He knows her life.

And based on what he has experienced of her, he does have reason to regard her as a trustworthy witness.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that another line of Palmer’s from an earlier scene in the movie also came to mind:

There is nothing wrong with the science, as long as your motive is the search for truth.

That really resonates with me. Palmer knew Ellie well, and he saw that she too was motivated by the search for truth. Perhaps that is why he later told the press that he believed Ellie.

I do not want to see science as the opponent of my faith.

And I do not want my faith to serve as a way of avoiding questions or evidence that might be uncomfortable for me.

If I am genuinely searching for truth, then there is room for questions, investigation, doubt, and evidence - but also for the possibility that there are things we do not yet understand.

And perhaps that is exactly why intellectual humility matters so much to me.

We do not have to answer every question immediately.

But neither do we have to close every question for which we currently lack a complete explanation.

🛤️ I Did Not End Up with Fewer Questions

After more than thirty years, I would not say that the Bible made my life simpler.

Rather, it shed a new light on it.

My questions did not disappear.

Some of them were born precisely when I found answers to others.

But I look at them differently now.

And perhaps that is one of the greatest gifts this journey has given me.

Not everything became easier.

Not everything became simpler.

But my life became better.

To me, the Bible is not merely an ancient text, but God’s Word, which I want to understand better and better.

For me, this is no longer merely a philosophical question.

It is personal.

And in this conviction, I am firm today.

But just because I firmly believe something does not mean I think every thought of my own is automatically correct.

🚪 I Am Not Afraid of Questions

I believe that if truth is truly truth, then I do not need to be afraid of questions.

That is why Jesus’ words are especially important to me:

and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. — John 8:32, New World Translation

I do not want my faith to become a place where certain questions are no longer allowed to be asked.

Rather, I want to see it as a path on which I can move ever closer to the truth - and at the same time become increasingly free from things I have believed incorrectly.

I know what I believe.

But I do not think that means I know everything.

I want to pay attention to my blind spots.

I want to examine things that do not fit the picture at first.

And I want to hold on to what is truly good.

💬 And Why Is It Good to Talk About These Things?

Some of my recent evening “conversations” with AI have also set many thoughts in motion for me.

Not because I expect it to tell me whether God exists.

I do not want to outsource that decision to it - and in truth, to anyone else either.

It is interesting because a good conversation can sometimes show us something from a different angle that we have been looking at for a long time.

I bring my questions, my experiences, and my enthusiasm.

The other side sometimes connects two things I had previously treated separately.

And then comes:

“Wow.”

And then:

“Okay. But is that really true?”

Perhaps that is one of the best things about a conversation.

Not when someone closes a question.

But when a good question raises three more.

I almost regard it as a celebration when we can talk openly and honestly about questions like these with someone.

Not because I want to convince them.

And not because I think I have all the answers.

Simply because I know how much an honest conversation can mean when you can ask questions without immediately being judged.

🌌 I Do Not Know Where Every Question Will Lead

Perhaps this is the most honest ending.

I have been on this journey for more than thirty years.

It has not become simpler.

It has not always become easier.

But my life has become better because of it.

And perhaps that is why it is worth continuing.

Because sometimes, after a film, a book, a scientific discovery, or an evening conversation, we suddenly find ourselves standing before a completely new question:

“Wait… could this be connected to that?”

And perhaps the truly interesting part is not even when we find the answer.

It is when we are brave enough to examine everything.

Not in order to prove what we already believe at all costs.

And not to automatically reject what we do not yet understand.

But to be able to distinguish between what we genuinely know, what we have good reason to consider likely, and what we currently see only as possible.

Perhaps in this way, “I don’t know” does not necessarily have to be the end of thinking.

It can be the beginning of a new question.

And perhaps curiosity, openness, and honest reflection are themselves abilities worth cultivating.

Because it may not always be most valuable when someone gives us the answer.

Sometimes the greatest gift may be when someone teaches us to ask differently, helps us find what is good, and hold firmly to it.

Music for the article:

Ed Goggin — Legacy

Transparency Note:

Some of the ideas in this article developed through conversations with artificial intelligence. I use AI as a tool for thinking and exploration, not as an authority. The questions, convictions, interpretations, and final editorial decisions are all my own.

The Unknown | Hunor Becsi's Website

What If a Variable Is Missing?

What If a Variable Is Missing?

In short:

⚡ When Questions Open Up New Connections

🧭 This Is Not How I Started

🐜 The Ant and the Line

🧩 I Am Not Looking for a Single Piece of Evidence

𝑥 The Missing Variable

🧩 What If We Start from the Present State?

🧠 Our Own Brain Can Be the Blind Spot

🔍 Make Sure of All Things

🔬 Science, Faith, and the Unknown

∞ The Idea of Eternity

📡 The Movie Contact

🛤️ I Did Not End Up with Fewer Questions

🚪 I Am Not Afraid of Questions

💬 And Why Is It Good to Talk About These Things?

🌌 I Do Not Know Where Every Question Will Lead

Music for the article:

Transparency Note: