Things that can't be scientifically verified (i.e. can it make predictions and are predictions falsifiable), goes especially for things that require several test universes to test out.
For example what is the purpose of the universe? Is this the only universe? Is it a simulation? Is everything predetermined?
If it would be, we could scientifically test for the limits of the experimentation model.
You can say, all of science is doing this effectivly. So far, no flaws have been found. If there were flaws, then within our models, so we adapt them, systematically approaching reality.
Now sure, if there would be an allmighty god, we would have no chance proofing him or her, that is tautological. But if it would be "just" aliens of a higher level, doing rat lab experiments with our universe, we could figure that out eventually.
I think one way to falsify simulation hypothesis, assuming universe running simulation have similar physics, is by finding limits of computation required to run the simulation, at some point we can find a bug or a glitch
Only physical facts that do not affect our subjective consciousness. For example if the earth is flat or round.
Actually, let me make a stronger statement than before: Even for scientific facts the statement is weak. If I stop believing that the world is round, then what does it mean that the „roundness“ will not go away? From my point of view it certainly goes away and the world _will be_ flat. In order to accept that it is, objectively, not flat I have to accept other information, often information that I do not check or verify myself.
But subjectively, if I really stop believing the world is round then for sure it will start to feel flat.
So this criterion is not a good one.
I think it only is useful in the world of „succeeding“. So for example I may believe that a vaccination is dangerous and as a consequence I may die if unvaccinated. This is an example of reality not going away. Or I may believe that I can pass a test without studying but then I don‘t and so that‘s reality, again.
That just means beliefs about things that do not or will not ever affect you, er, don’t affect you. It seems like a trivial point.
You’re still accumulating risk though. You don’t know when a false belief will lead yo to make a consequential error, and also false beliefs could lead you to adopt faulty attitudes or ways of thinking that could lead you towards false beliefs in consequential ways. Or you could propagate such false beliefs to others, which may be consequential for them.
It‘s not more trivial than „Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.“ which is a useless criterion even for scientific facts.
What you‘re suggesting about a false belief is an „unknown unknown“ so again the criteria of the quote is pretty useless in practice.
> From my point of view it certainly goes away and the world _will be_ flat.
No, it simply means that you will start to build on a flawed premise and will run into the limitations of your knowledge sooner rather than later. Being informed about the world allows you to make better decisions and to reach further in the achievement of your goals. That is why the scientific method is so successful and why science and not obstinacy has driven us forward further in the last 500 years than in all of the preceding millennia together.
Which fundamental things cannot get scientifically investigated?