Radagast, my post was not meant to imply or incite criticism of yours. In my short time here you've been a great source of info and discourse. I think we are still misunderstanding each other on the double slit topic but the focus has shifted.
I guess what I'd like to get across is that though they are all untestable theories in a way, they also represent the timeless march of mainstream scientific thought. Here's a great article I stumbled upon just yesterday:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216 ... f-science/
We're at a point where the technology and energy required to probe any deeper into the fabric of the universe is so great that it cannot be achieved until we build a dyson sphere, or two, or 10. And maybe even then there will be no way to empirically answer the fundamental questions of cosmology, i.e. bubble universes, universal collapse and rebound, etc.
I follow and defend the exploration of things like string theory and the varying interpretations of quantum mechanics because they are important, grandiose thought experiments that give us insight into where to prod and poke next, and give us new and revolutionary ways of thinking about reality. Just like MBT!
I certainly agree that string theory, branes, and the quantum theory of gravity are nowhere close to being falsifiable, but they are useful as scaffolding to build upon when we eventually can. Tom's theory may be unfalsifiable in certain aspects, but as a "big picture" it is exceptionally graceful. Ultimately both the worlds of physics/mathematics and the world of metaphysics/consciousness will have to start sharing notes. This duality is not only interesting, but I believe it will ultimately be necessary to truly reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity, physics and metaphysics, that both the academic world and the world at large can accept.
And I agree, it is certainly not a good idea to turn this into a religion. Although if it does, dibs on a lofty bishop position. I'll wave and bless people by saying "it's just data".