My post above was a specific response to whatshisface's comment, saying that science need not, and will not, be hobbled by inordinate skepicism (which, if persu

My post above was a specific response to whatshisface's comment, saying that science need not, and will not, be hobbled by inordinate skepicism (which, if persued consistently, collapses into useless solipsism.) In this particular case, science adopts the idea of unchanging laws as a methodological assumption rather than an axiom. Similarly, science need not, and will not, be hobbled by the "infinite number of unfalsifiable theories" that you raise. In effect, science tables all these fanciful objections unless and until circumstances and evidence make them relevant. Scence is not metaphysics - it is not attempting to deduce how the world must be; it is trying to find out how it is, and so the sort of arguments that philosophers get entangled in (such as "possible worlds" arguments which ultimately reduce to what a given philosopher can imagine) don't carry much weight. This is not just "something akin" to Occam's razor; it is precisely that, and it is not a vague preference for "beauty" or "elegance". Elsewhere, Hossenfelder made an insightful comment about falsifiability, along the lines that falsifiability is just table stakes for a hypothesis to make the grade as a theory, and not a guarantor of merit.