And in ancient times, the the Greco-Roman Ploutonion at Hierapolis.

OP doesn't seem to be talking about absolutism at all. They're talking about how the stuff we know, including the theories you mentioned, still have underlying probabilities (uncertainty) that we can look at and be almost entirely sure, but never 100%.

It's like determining a sphere's superposition. We can probabilistically determine where a sphere is at by analyzing it in the context of an infinite number of planes, but not the actual sphere itself. And we can extrapolate to the space around it to fill in the gaps between the sphere and its polyhedron representation. But by definition, that gap is uncertain. We can model the gap if it's that important, but it generally isn't. The representation is good enough.

I want to live long enough (read way longer than we do now) to master multiple subjects in math and science, like neuroscience/neurology, computer science, physics, quantum physics/mechanics, but also including some of the social sciences like linguistics, economics, anthropology, and sociology.

There's something to learn between them all. It feels like people, societies, and neurons in the brain all look like they coalesce in ways similar to what we see with matter in physics.

I only played football through high school and suffered at least 2 severe concussions by the time I graduated. One of them was so severe they had to have someone come get me off the field and take me to the hospital. It's unbelievable how dangerous it is at very young ages.