All scientific knowledge is knowledge of concepts: it tries to find a new, unfamiliar, hidden something in common with other, already familiar to subdue him something already known and familiar. That this is all scientific statement of the explanation. But can we say that reality itself is really nothing that can not be incorporated into the scheme of the familiar, friendly or conceivable? If we can meaningfully talk about incomprehensible, it should be in any form available to us, and understandable. It should, for all its incomprehensibility, such as occur in the composition of our experience. If a part of our experience there was what we call inconceivable that we could not establish any such word, nor the corresponding concept.
Therefore permissible to assume that in an experiment in the fact that somehow opens our consciousness, found incomprehensible, something that is not can be decomposed into the concept of evidence, something that, although clearly we are given, but on their own content, by its nature is contradictory and therefore logically it can not be seen as clearly definable, understandable. In this case, our experience is of conceivable and inconceivable. Conceivable object of knowledge can be had either at least in part, know or even just the unknown. If the object is at least partially, fully known, we have of its proposition "A is B '. The statement "A is B" does not mean "identical in A," as the content of A is A and B. This is not a proposition means "where there is a there there in" or "associated with a B".