At the cost of being extremely annoying for the second time today, what does "a truth we can't empirically prove" look like?

> All the modern talk about multiverses, universe simulations, and AGI

None of the things you mention are "philosophical truths". The first is one of many interpretations of QM, the second is a meme, the third is a vague, unclear teleological goal of computer science. I'm not objecting to the fact that you can speculate, I myself said that pointing to new things, as vague and undefined they may be, is generally useful and stimulating. I'm objecting to the idea that you can have "truths you can't prove".

> I wasn’t trying to lump math and science together and agree they’re very different, although both based on core propositional truths that are taken on faith.

Sorry, my fault. Tomato, tomato.