[matheusd]

> You're describing certainty. This is a prediction, not reality.

I was being concrete about atoms, in particular, not about what gets named as a "scientific fact" in general.

Yes, in general you don't reach that threshold of being able to produce a stream of evidence that is always compatible to a theory, and you should not call that theory a fact (I also pointed that out on a different message). However for the existence of atoms, specifically, I do believe we have reached this level.

> Certainty does have interesting properties, from a Bayesian perspective: if you are certain of something

I don't literally believe with 100% certainty that atoms exist (because I may as well be a Boltzmann Brain hallucinating my entire universe). I say there will never come a time when we'll disprove the existence of atoms (at their level of abstraction).