Everything that is "conceivable" is not necessarily "purely conceptual".
The scope of our analysis (discussion) is necessarily limited to the "conceivable".
How do you distinguish the purely conceptual from the the not purely conceptual?
Not necessarily.
Even a printed page can contain MORE data than another printed page.
How does one gauge this without considering a fixed amount? Using your example, would one consider the amount of words, or the subjects broached? What would "more" mean?
The total percentage of "everything" "known" in relation to the total percentage of "everything" "unknown" is indeterminate.
It would be the total amount of "everything" "known" in relation to the total amount of "everything" "known" and "everything" "unknown" presuming of course that "everything" consists of the known and unknown. The closer the unknown is to 0, the closer we are to knowing everything; the closer the unknown is to infinity (or indefinite quantity) the closer we are to knowing (next to) nothing. Tautologically, we don't know what we don't know. It serves no utility in any expression of a relation. Past experience may indicate that we've made "discoveries," but the unknown with respect to what we do know has never changed.
Simply because we don't know the full scope of what we don't know, does not contradict the demonstrable fact "we don't know everything".
Presuming of course there is a "scope." And please demonstrate that we don't known everything.
The only possible counter-claim would be "we DO know everything" (which is provably false).
Please demonstrate or reference this proof of falsehood.
Without variation, individual identification and ontological division would be impossible.
That begs the question: why is individual identification and ontological division necessary?
Because of the definition of "existence".
There are many definitions of existence.
"The Mind" is a series of divisions (variations).
These divisions necessitate interaction.
The predictability of these interactions are LOGIC
If logic is the predictability of these interactions, how then is the mind dependent on logic? Does the mind require prediction?
"The Mind" is not 100% known (or perceivable).
Please elaborate.