(Barbarian explains that science never proves anything, just verifies inferences to the point that it's foolish to deny the findings)
So your proposition in post #103 is just a futile exercise since you won't be able to prove anything.
Some people might think so, but then that process (for example) tells us how to make computers out of dirt.
"It's just a fact. We don't know the rules in nature; we infer what they are from observing the way it works. So no way to "prove" anything."
In science. You can't prove the Sun will come up tomorrow morning. But we have enough evidence to consider that statement to be true.
Since there is no way to prove anything,
A real scientist would know that science doesn't prove anything. Science is inductive, and while there are inductive proofs, they don't work in science. Here's why:
Logical certainty is possible when you know the rules and deduce the particulars from the rules. In science, we can only observe the particulars and infer the rules thereby.
So no "proofs."
there is no way you can prove all the other things you said.
Actually, induction, being a matter of logic, is provable. If you're confused, go back and read it again. And think about it.
You can't even prove that "we infer what they are from observing the way it works", because that would be part of anything.
But, as you just learned, logic does have proofs.
You can also not prove that "it is a fact",
It's directly observed. What is true is a larger set than what is provable. Think about it.