Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
I have seen a number of claims, but it isn’t clear to me that you have presented a falsifiable hypothesis.
That I present here is only part of bigger theory. Is it falsifiable or no – I see predictions in bigger theory, but I would prefer to not discuss the full theory here, too complex.
So, as of now, in the presented article I shown that the hypothesis is compatible with SR and GR. And logic of it can be checked.

Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
Could you state just what, specifically, your hypothesis is, some non-trivial predictions it makes that aren’t made by existing theory, and what evidence you have found that supports these predictions?

Why should we care if you can derive some form of the anthropic principle from your arguments? How does this this lead to scientifically measurable results that can be used as a test for a hypothesis?

Much like Reality Check, I don’t see where the science is here or the point of bringing up anthropic principle arguments when discussing what is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis.
You asking about what’s new the hypothesis add to science. And answer to your question is right in your question. Even deriving of anthropic principle alone from some physical model is significant result in foundations of physics.
If something was derived from physical hypothesis – it is science.
So, if my theory is correct, antropic principle is science, not philosophy, at least for cases covered by the theory.

Also, just few posts above I already shown several points where my hypothesis contradicts to mainstream.

Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
Again, I am more interested in what testable predictions you can make that support your claims.
As of now, it is possible to test correctness of logic used for deriving the theory.

Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
I can make a claim that there is an invisible elf in my yard, but should anyone care that it is not easy to refute? What is more important is how the claim can be supported and if there is any actual support for the claim.
Usually it is named as Russell’s teapot.
Such argument typically used when someone try to add something extra and unnecessary to existing theory. However, I not add something additional, I reduce number of independent phenomena. So, the argument used incorrectly.