I'm unsure if you're disagreeing or agreeing with me because I agree with the piece. And Sabine isn't saying that top physics isn't falsifiable, she's saying th

I'm unsure if you're disagreeing or agreeing with me because I agree with the piece. And Sabine isn't saying that top physics isn't falsifiable, she's saying that it is, but that this is not enough. Which is true. Falsifiability is not sufficient, but it is still a necessary requirement. If your physical theory cannot even be tested against the world, it is not physics. If it can, that still might not make it relevant. Wolfram's theory though is worse in that it doesn't appear to be even testable, doesn't build on things we know describe the world well,