Were you repeatedly dropped as a child?
In order for something to be discoverable, it requires one quality, and one quality alone, and that quality is that IT MUST FIRST EXIST.
You seem to think, for some unknown reason, that you must first know about something to be able to discover it. If that is the case, then it has already been discovered. But if your right on this, then how do you account for the fact that we keep discovering things exist? Or ever did in the first place? By your logic, something cannot be discovered unless it is first known about, so we never discovered the planet Uranus, because we did not know it was there to look! The whole concept is just plain ridiculous.
For something to exist, and be not discoverable, is a literal impossibility. Now, THIS question at least does have a why (and yes, they are two SEPARATE questions)... and it is ridiculously simple...
-For something to exist, and be not discoverable, it would have to be non-physical, otherwise we would be able to see it and/or touch it and/or measure it in some form. Right? With me still?
-Bang! It doesn't exist.
Non-physical things cannot exist. For something to exist, it hast to be matter or energy (or both), and both are physical in nature.
What does this have to do with anything? NOTHING AT ALL. Hence, no counter argument to refute. And, they were both the same nonsensical non-argument btw.
And and if you have read the book, the why are you asking me questions you should already know the answer to?
And please, go and learn what these logical fallacies actually mean- every single time you list one, you do so incorrectly.