>Any good scientific theory must create falsifiable hypotheses.

For any behavior inside the world, this is good.

But for the world itself and what harbor's it, asking for falsifiability is like measuring the expansion of space using a ruler that inhabits the same space.

Even science, that works in terms of cause and affect, which implies space and time, cannot be used to describe space and time itself.

Vanilla "scientists" have been trying to do that, but that is a dead end.

So time extending into the future is not a useful hypothesis? Space continuing beyond the cosmic horizon is not a useful hypothesis? The past entropy of the past being arbitrarily low (vs what is essentially last tuesdayism) is not a useful hypothesis?