>> ...subject to our assumed framework and chosen prior. This is usually implicit in such analyses. >> More generally, what's even the point of placing a conf

>> ...subject to our assumed framework and chosen prior. This is usually implicit in such analyses. >> More generally, what's even the point of placing a confidence level on a non-falsifiable claim? What utility does it serve? It's not about falsifiability in the sense that someone should go out and measure the predicted lifetime of the universe experimentally. The point of such lifetime calculations (and their associated confidence levels) is more as a test of the underlying theory - the Standard Model of particle physics. If this theory would make the prediction that the lifetime of the universe should be shorter than the observed lifetime of the universe, then clearly there is something wrong with the theory, or with the way the lifetime has been computed, since clearly we are still here to make that calcuation. Usually, this is seen as a sign that there should be some new physics - i.e. physics that is not described by the standard model in its present form - that should enter at an energy scale relevant to the calculation. Since this we do not know about this physics yet, the calculation is necessarily incomplete, which would explain finding a "too short" lifetime of the universe, while with a more complete theory one would (hopefully) find a result, that explains observed lifetime of the universe. The fact that the paper finds a "long enough" lifetime of the universe, could be seen as an indication that the theory is able to make predictions at energy scales relevant to this calculation.