> 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.
Law of causation, Doomsday argument, complex processes that can't be recreated, historical processes which leave faint empirical markers, etc.
DNA and quantum mechanics are 2 areas where the boundary between philosophy and science has shifted over time. All the modern talk about multiverses, universe simulations, and AGI seem philosophical, but might become scientific in the future. But people who believe in these concepts will take different actions than people who don’t, so you can’t say it just doesn’t matter because we can’t prove it yet.
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.