"Yet all of our scientific progress is biased, because we have evolved in a very specific environment that we handle well." I often get discouraged thinking ab

"Yet all of our scientific progress is biased, because we have evolved in a very specific environment that we handle well." I often get discouraged thinking about this. Our entire body of scientific knowledge consists of inferences drawn from human observation, but our sensory apparatus is only sensitive to a few different things/processes. And the mental processes we apply to our observations evolved to simply help us survive our physical environment. We could be fatally under-equipped to ever come close to "understanding" the universe, right? Also, I'm WAY out of my depth here, but is it at least possible to imagine a system where there are multiple sets of elementary particles, with each set not interacting with the rest? I'm imagining an arbitrary number of sets of particles that are each identical in function to the particles comprising our physical world, but the states of the particles in Set 1 have no effect on the states of the particles in Set 2, and so on. The result could be many intertwined or overlaid physical universes, all occupying the same "space." Could something like this ever be disproved?