. . .
How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?
Hindsight? For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology. I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation. With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct. This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.
One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.
The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.
That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.
Different universe? Different set.
So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense. Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax?
. . .
limx→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0
S₁ = kBln 0 = kBln e−(−0) = kB(−(−0)) = −(−0)
S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂
S₂ = −0 = kBln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ kB = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e−0 = −0 = Ω
. . .
I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.
How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?
We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").
Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.
In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of
this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.
In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are essentially notating the relationships between what things are and what they are not, e.g. we can ascribe things to exist specifically because they are not non-existent. And, extending to specific conditional events, we define them in terms of both what they are and what they are not, e.g. apple is an apple because it isn't a not-apple.
If this isn't what you're implying, could you provide additional clarity? Furthermore, how would you describe the relationship between consciousness and "non-existence?"