empirical evidence is only available when measure theory is applicable and general relativity as well as other physical limitations impact how an observer (system) obtains any such ‘measures’ via any kind of ‘observation’. to find a measure of the impact of such theories on a particular observation, one needs to apply those theories recursively. at this point, a novice, may complain that the circular logic of the previous statement is offensive and simply dismiss it for not being able to recognize ‘recursion relations’.
for evaluating concepts where measure theory fails, category theory can be used. all such theories and abstractions have not come from “empirical proofs”, they merely come from musings. for instance, there is no “empirical proof of existence” for the entity known as ‘point’ which, is necessarily supposed to be the smallest possible constituent of every conceivable geometrical entity. nor does an empirical proof exist for statements like “faith is belief without evidence” and “empirical evidence must be demonstrable and reproducible”. such statements are examples of culturally inherited normative prescription and are not axioms nor theorems nor laws of physics.
please read my article on “falsifiability” regarding a critique on the idea that a certain type of statements may merit the tag of being “scientific”. how does one prove that statements which may not merit the tag of being scientific are thoroughly useless?
there is a peculiar physical limitation that any system (observer) faces in recognizing a concept: the system needs to change ever so slightly within its construct to accommodate the concept that needs to be learned and not so much that it goes past the point of learning the concept or worse, changes to an extent that it gets destroyed and ceases to even exist. the extent of this change is never controllable by the system in the long run. this is what one can learn while reading about ‘entropy’. entropy is applicable to all systems, by the way. it is the capacity of a system to tend from order to reorder. the concept of entropy is applicable to the entire universe and to every portion of it and indeed trying to empirically investigate the truth of the statement i just made about entropy would be impossible. and even evaluating the veracity of the previous statement is not in the domain of ’empiricism’.
so how can such physics relate to, say, theology? here is one such way: for someone (a human system) to believe in or learn about a concept like that of ‘deity’ or subscribe to a theology that yields a code of ethical conduct, the person merely needs to be contemplative while being assiduous in the pursuit of such learning and use his or her biological hardware (body) as an empirical test bed to run simulations of concepts that can get strung together to yield new concepts. but in doing so, there is naturally, no guarantee that the person will indeed manage to learn the concept of deity or appreciate any type of theology. the person’s inability to learn is certainly no proof of the absence of the being to which the tag of deity has been assigned. apart from the context of theology, such a fact about limits of recognition is true for any phenomenon.
for now, let me get you started on some simulations: one may come across concepts like bigger, better, stronger etc. along the lines of such concepts, please contemplate why a word like supreme-er is nonexistent in the face a concept like ‘supreme’ or why a word like ultimate-er does’t exist in comparison to the concept of ‘The Ultimate’. there after, contemplate if this so called ‘The Ultimate’ has any capacity to influence a person’s capacity to be ethical? can a person’s ethical conduct change merely because they do or don’t understand concepts like ‘The Ultimate’? can this ultimate being, if acknowledged to exist, be observed empirically to have a capacity to do anything at all? does the concept of ‘capacity’ apply to that which may be ‘The Ultimate’? would a person who claims to be ‘The Ultimate’ be treated as sane by the rest of society?