I'm saying everything in science requires evidence for it to be considered as scientific truth (which is different to absolute truth). Philosophical or absolute truth exists, logically it must if we are to even begin to understand the universe (as we have through science). Absolute truth can only be determined once it has happened, it cannot be predicted (indeterminism says this). That said, science can never know if scientific truth is the same as absolute truth, since it cannot predict what absolute truth might do in the future. All scientific truth can do is expand as more evidence comes in, and eventually get to a level which says "this is pretty accurate".
As for truth, I am defining it as what is correct, what is "true", what happens, what has happened, and what will happen. Every single particle (and whatever goes beyond particles) has truth values, defining the position, speed, every attribute it has. They may differ over time, but at one point in time they must all have some kind of value, and that value can be estimated through science.
As for truth, I am defining it as what is correct, what is "true", what happens, what has happened, and what will happen. Every single particle (and whatever goes beyond particles) has truth values, defining the position, speed, every attribute it has. They may differ over time, but at one point in time they must all have some kind of value, and that value can be estimated through science.