So we know that scientist understand "physical" reality.Non sequitur! I did not say that. You did. I said that scientist know more about the physical universe than most
people. I did not say that scientist understand physical reality. Scientists are limited to understand how the
universe exists but scientist do not understand why the universe exists, they guess "why" = a random number
generator. You are confused about reality if you assume that reality = physical universe -and nothing else is real unless it is a scientific fact which means that something should not and does not exists unless or until it is known.
Do we know that there's another group of people who understand the "other factors that make up reality?" If so, how does this other group know there are other factors?What methodology do the use to determine those other factors?What are those other factors?Who is this group that knows about these other factors?Is there consensus in the group about those other factors?
I have already responded to that, but you keep posting the same thing again; You only word things differently and you keep saying the same thing: 'Reality is subject to proof' If that is what you conclude you are wrong and here is why: Reality is not subject to proof because reality is not subject to personal belief, belief can be subject to proof.
If you consider the physical universe in terms of a given working mechanical machine, it might not be so important to understand why the machine exists, but only how it works and how it was made because why it was made has zero effect on how it is working thus scientists conclude that Y has zero effect in understanding how the universe is working
I am getting tired now but I will say this: Although Y could have zero effect on how the universe is working in terms of understanding the dynamics of the working universe does not mean that Y does not have any effect on Reality unless it was known that that Y did not exist.