Even the theory's advocate acknowledges in this interview that it's untestable. There is no way to observe that the world would behave differently whether or not the theory is true. If that's so, I can't think what point there is discussing it, except as a mental exercise. If you can't test a theory, that means it can't affect anything. I.e. it has no practical use, except as a form of entertainment.
I would almost argue that it doesn't make sense to talk about something being true or untrue if it cannot be tested nor used to make any predictions. The whole concept of truth, for me, reflects the extent to which reality conforms to belief. So if there isn't and will never be a way to test a belief, then it's neither true nor false.
IMO, this is the type of thinking that gives philosophers a bad rap.
I would almost argue that it doesn't make sense to talk about something being true or untrue if it cannot be tested nor used to make any predictions. The whole concept of truth, for me, reflects the extent to which reality conforms to belief. So if there isn't and will never be a way to test a belief, then it's neither true nor false.
IMO, this is the type of thinking that gives philosophers a bad rap.