There are many scientific truths which seem to be absolute. For example- matter attracts matter , whether it is the matter of earth or sun or stars or dark matter etc ,they all attract each other.
How do we identify such truths as and are they really permanent?
Scientific truths are forms. They have to be b/c they are cause-effect (form). they must be impermanent b/c all composite things (form) are impertinent ie the cuase-effect will become dissociated.
being composite in their nature, are unsubstantial, transient, and subject to living and death.
I suppose this depends on the context. If there is a time where matter did not exist or can be defined as existing e.g. the singularity of the Big Bang then there is no way to verify this scientific fact. Similarly, if we imagine a higher dimension where matter do not exist, again this scientific fact cannot be tested and would not be relevant.
I think the real value of scientific theories and laws are not that they are permanent but that they are useful to us right now. Personally, this is how I feel about the Buddha’s teachings as well although some would argue that the Dharma is true and absolute whether in the past, present or future. Suppose (although very, very improbable) all beings are enlightened, does the Dharma still matter? With Metta.
Any phenomenon which is conventionally real is impermanent. Impermanence is synonymous with functional. Something that is not functional (by way of cause effect) is not conventionally real. It is permanent. It implies it is also absolute.
Thus, if you posit that scientific truths are absolute, then it implies they are permanent and therefore you cannot say they are impermanent.
