[flagged]
No, you can't.
Our understanding of physical constants is based on empirical confirmation via multiple samples. They're still just probably correct, and we haven't confirmed the laws of physics are uniform across either time or space.
This whole concept is what the skeptical shorthand of "you can't prove a negative" actually means. You can show some instance or set of instances of something, but you cannot show that something is universally always true. The tentative nature of our ability to understand the world is the basis for why we use science to approximate objective reality.
so i tend to think that science, as approximated here^, is how i tend yo assertively believe as well.
namely, that science reveals our perceptible reality, through a specific arrangement of direct and indirect observations following along philosophical notions through critically formulated discursive language.
who is to say, like historical evidence, what type of philosophical investigations might provide us some way of becoming aware the breviously unknown?
i suggest having an honest imagination to everyone!
There is literally another MOND article discussed in this very forum every week or so. All theories are provisional and based on finite evidence and general consensus. There is no such thing as empirical truth the way you imagine.
> There is no such thing as empirical truth the way you imagine.
And statements misses the ability to hold an absolute truth. No, wait!