Event horizon of knowledge

1) Our universe is a system defined by a set of elements* and a set of unyielding** governing rules.

2) Within such a system, none of the rules can be observed directly...but their existence can only be inferred by the overwhelming accumulation of empirical evidence

3) It is possible to design a system where some of the rules make it impossible to observe (and/or validate) empirical evidence for some of the other rules, making it fundamentally impossible to know a subset of the rules given infinite research done from within the system by infinitely intelligence beings.

4) Our universe appears to be such a system

5) under this assumption, and given sufficient quantity/complexity/diversity of the rules that some of them can be ascertained to begin with, and that some of these can assist in the acquisition of new rules, then the growth rate of knowledge will be necessarily exponential to begin with

6) given the constraint that some rules are prevented from being directly observable, and that there is some statistical variation in this, the growth rate must have a horizontal asymptote

7) this horizontal asymptote will converge to the event horizon of knowledge: the maximal possible knowledge of the system that can be observed given infinite intelligence and infinite time spent in research.

* by elements, I am not referring to the chemical elements, but rather to the elements of the set which form the constituents of our universe. I emphasize that we cannot, at this time, confidently define that set, but assume that some set must exist, in some form or another, by simple induction on the fact that we exist.

** although many of the apparently "fundamental" rules that we observe are not actually "unyielding" but only hold under certain situations, i assert that any such rule that is not unyielding under ALL circumstances is therefore not truly a fundamental rule, but an emergent "rule of thumb" based on deeper, unyielding rules.