The simple and slightly mocking answer to this question is as follows: the universe does not seem to have a world with other properties for you.
Philosophers of science were busy formulating a more detailed answer for almost the entire twentieth century.
Once it became clear that the positivism of the nineteenth century was untenable in the context of the ever-changing status quo in science (the discovery of subatomic particles, the emergence of quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.), many ideas arose to adapt the concept of “truth” to the brave new world.
As a result, the synthesis of ideas won out: the first pillar of the modern philosophy of scientific knowledge is the idea introduced by Karl Popper that there are simply no absolute truths in science, and we can only offer concepts that describe reality worse or better. In such circumstances, the constant refutation of old theories is an absolute blessing, since this is the only thing that allows us to improve the description; if the theory cannot be refuted — then it is simply not scientific.
The second pillar is Thomas Kuhn's idea of scientific revolutions. In three words, it can be described as a concept of the development of science in the form of a series of painful paradigm shifts with intervals of quiet “normal development”. According to Kuhn, scientific revolutions are inevitable, because a critical mass of unacceptable experimental facts will accumulate regardless of how good the theory is — and you can always offer a better theory.
Thus, the scientific mainstream has long been accustomed to the fact that there are no unshakable truths, since one theory must replace another, and this happens as a result of refutation. I sincerely think that reading about various scientific revolutions is very much reconciling with the seemingly ephemeral nature of our ideas about the world.
There is a third approach to answering this question: perhaps you should stop treating the word “theory” as something that is not strong enough. As the great band They Might Be Giants sings, ” scientific theory isn't a guessing game; rather, it's a question that's been put to the ultimate test.”
The simple and slightly mocking answer to this question is as follows: the universe does not seem to have a world with other properties for you.
Philosophers of science were busy formulating a more detailed answer for almost the entire twentieth century.
Once it became clear that the positivism of the nineteenth century was untenable in the context of the ever-changing status quo in science (the discovery of subatomic particles, the emergence of quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.), many ideas arose to adapt the concept of “truth” to the brave new world.
As a result, the synthesis of ideas won out: the first pillar of the modern philosophy of scientific knowledge is the idea introduced by Karl Popper that there are simply no absolute truths in science, and we can only offer concepts that describe reality worse or better. In such circumstances, the constant refutation of old theories is an absolute blessing, since this is the only thing that allows us to improve the description; if the theory cannot be refuted — then it is simply not scientific.
The second pillar is Thomas Kuhn's idea of scientific revolutions. In three words, it can be described as a concept of the development of science in the form of a series of painful paradigm shifts with intervals of quiet “normal development”. According to Kuhn, scientific revolutions are inevitable, because a critical mass of unacceptable experimental facts will accumulate regardless of how good the theory is — and you can always offer a better theory.
Thus, the scientific mainstream has long been accustomed to the fact that there are no unshakable truths, since one theory must replace another, and this happens as a result of refutation. I sincerely think that reading about various scientific revolutions is very much reconciling with the seemingly ephemeral nature of our ideas about the world.
There is a third approach to answering this question: perhaps you should stop treating the word “theory” as something that is not strong enough. As the great band They Might Be Giants sings, ” scientific theory isn't a guessing game; rather, it's a question that's been put to the ultimate test.”