While I haven't made any blog posts in Quora yet, I have answered a few questions. Here's one of my recent Answers.

Question: Does Chris Langan's CTMU give rise to any kind of physical predictions that could be experimentally tested? Is any part of it potentially falsifiable?

My Answer:

The question seems innocent enough. However it reveals an elephant-in-the-room for the science-minded.

For whatever reason, from what I’ve seen, Langan has chosen not to address the whole elephant. Being taken seriously is something he has worked hard to attain, and I can respect that. Do unto others what you wish others to do unto you.

The elephant though is something of a cosmic joke. Modern hyper-objective, institutionalized science no doubt wishes to avoid the prospect of its own superior position being made a mockery, even if the joke is a very good one.

Specifically, no form of theoretical physics is falsifiable. Which means… imagination, not proof, is the existential testing ground at the core of physics. Not math, experimentation, or even reproducibility. It must make room for imagination that is logically consistent with reality.

I’m not sure Langan and others who support his work would be comfortable with such a conclusion either. Nevertheless, it’s logical.

Mainstream scientist and philosophers certainly aren’t. The elephant-avoidance has gotten so bad though that, in the last few years, a portion of those who are aware of it are performing an elaborate song and dance while they attempt to rewrite the punchline into something more favorable. Consider the 2015 invitation-only Munich conference “Why Trust a Theory?” in which the point seems to be for physics and cosmology to quickly but quietly adopt standards for establishing good speculation (without calling it that).

Not very honest as far as existential inquiry is concerned.