Today, 09:48 AM
Yeah, no duh, I know, because I read it. Whichever one you're referring to, because I read both of them.
It is only a theory once you come up with a good way to potentially disprove it. Until then, it is not part of the rubric we call empirical science. It's just a story.
This goes back to Occam's point that it really is a good idea to keep physics and metaphysics separate (if you're serious about either), or at least to distinguish between the two. But, that would be less persuasive. The most persuasive thing to do is to stir and mix your metaphysical theories together with science. One sentence one, one sentence the other. This gives the impression to the listener/reader that it's all part of the same grand system and thus imparts the Mantle of Science to your metaphysics. Physics has a good track record as being level-headed, rigorous, and producing real, useful results in the real world. If you can draft off some of that sweet, sweet credibility, well, you're gonna be persuasive.
More precisely, Disprovable. And if it's not, then it is not empirical science! Actually empirical science can't technically prove or disprove anything, only logic can do that. But it can at least induct! You've got to at least be able to do that much! If you can't induct, you must rejuct!
Not really. It actually does not conform at all. For it to conform, there would have to be a major advance in our current understanding of abiogenesis. Until then, it just doesn't work. Have as many Big Bangs as you want. It just doesn't work. According to our current understanding, there may not even be any mechanism that *could* work, at all, ever, even giving infinite time to infinite primordial ooze. Going back to Sunny Tuft's bridge game, it would be like getting a hand of 200 King Kandy cards that were alive and self-aware and talked incessantly to you.