So, I’m really looking forward to how we can move past “maximal probablility”. I am really hoping that this whole process is not just to point out the fact that we’re limited.

I’m not saying it won’t interact with the Universe.

I’m saying that there is not guarantee it will offer itself to our senses. We have no good reason to believe that just because something exists, it will present itself to us.

For example, the mind — consciousness. We cannot measure it. We cannot prove it.

It is real. It has transformed our globe into a den of war, receding glaciers, rapturous art, storehouses of history.

Yet, it cannot be observed, and we can not prove that we are not simply biochemical reactions — that is, that “the mind” exists at all. As you suggest, we should be able to measure its effects, though the cause itself might remain hidden.

But if the cause remains hidden, we are simply guessing at that “cause.” Perhaps our calculations are wrong. Perhaps we need more data. Nothing can point conclusively to that which we can’t observe. There is nothing but a hunch. And yet, as in the case of the mind, it is the big question of science!

It’s irony after irony.

“Is it not reasonable then to propose that there may be other components of our Universe that do not interact at all with the forces we can observe and yet are vital to the continuance of the Universe?”

I would say no – it’s not reasonable. Anything vital to the Universe must eventually imprint upon the observable. If it’s vital to the Universe, it must interact with the Universe.

We should then be able to measure the effects of your proposed unobservable, and make discoveries about it, still limited to empirical methods.

If we were to build a sophisticated enough computer, we could model the entire Universe and discover all sorts of patterns that point to something unobserved. Much like how astronomers have been discovering extra-solar planets for decades with unsophisticated telescopes and sophisticated math.