To me, it seems like a bit of a trick - take a philosophical question, propose an answer, stuff some mathematics into the answer, maybe even a few minor empirical predictions, make people think those added bits make the answer more likely to be correct and more respectable than competing answers which don’t do that - I don’t think that actually works though

> Like panpsychism though, I don't think it's falsifiable.

Well, I don’t think any theory in this area is falsifiable. Either you give up demanding falsifiability or embrace agnosticism (we don’t know and we maybe never will)

Maybe give up on falsifiability, since presenting it as an absolute must-have is self-defeating (the idea that falsifiability is a must-have is itself unfalsifiable)