The concept of “intuition” as a means of discovering facts (knowledge) about the Universe cannot be verified or proven, thus is invalid. No person can verify another person's “intuition” by intuition alone. Any attempt to 'verify' anything immediately puts you in the realm of sensory perception/observation/measurement and so invalidates the assertion that we 'obtain knowledge' via the agency of intuition.
I will postulate that we receive information via the senses that is integrated in the subconscious mind and is then presented to the conscious mind in a symbolic form that needs to be interpreted by the conscious mind but this is not direct apprehension of the Universe via “intuition” but a process rooted in the sensory world first.
Life itself was already mentioned by the great mind of betty b, I think, in this thread. We can neither observe nor describe the substance of life.
Begs the Question there is a substance of life. And to say that life is 'unobservable' is to say we cannot know that it exists apart from what is not life. To say we don't know the 'mechanism' of life is to say we haven't found it yet. You may assert that it cannot be or will never be but that commits another fallacy. It is this kind of Straw Man Fallacy that I find particularly annoying. It reminds me of the people who say that because we don't know everything we don't know anything. Nevertheless this is not an example of a non-observable source for knowledge about the Universe, which was the subject under discussion.
The rest of your comments are conjecture and opinion and thus are off topic. I am talking about what you can and cannot know. By definition the Multi-verse cannot be determined to exist one way or another, thus is a rather futile exercise. It is akin to talking about what color Unicorns are. From a Logical Positivist position it is meaningless as saying, “Argle nool varkoobin flark.”
First—why do you so readily accept the existence of the subconscious mind?
“To say we don’t know the ‘mechanism’ of life is to say we haven’t found it yet...It is this kind of Straw Man Fallacy that I find particularly annoying.”
Here’s something you can know: to say we don’t know the mechanism, the substance or the essence of life is an assertion which is logically consistent with the proposition that life is not reducible to material phenomena.
Logically consistent.
Perhaps this fact is what annoys you, my friend. If so, I hope you will be inspired to confront the annoyance directly.
"Science is and must be exciting, since it relies on largely unspecifiable clues which can be sensed, mobilized and integrated only by a passionate response to their hidden meaning.... This is the unaccountable element which enters into science at its source and vitally participates throughout, even in its final result. In science this element has been called intuition." --Michael Polanyi, Scientist and Philosopher
"Polanyi ... most adequately expressed this idea of "lower intuition," so to speak, being critical to the evolution of scientific understanding and therefore progress into the great unKnown. It's not so much that the "intuition" is lower, only that science applies (and arbitrarily limits it) to a lower order of reality, i.e., the material/horizontal world.
"But to point out that the material world cannot be understood in the absence of intuition is to simultaneously affirm the obvious fact that the world is not material. "
".... reality itself is nothing but an intuition.