The infinitely fractal universe paradigm and consupponibility.

The inability of Albert Einstein and quantum physicists to resolve whether the laws of nature operate exactly or probabilistically impacted scientific methodology. Karl Popper further compounded the problem by stressing empirical falsifiability and proposing causes cannot be proven because of infinite regress. For these and other reasons, many investigators either downplayed propositions of cause or even ridiculed them. With causality vilified, metaphysics took a back seat to empirical science. In Earth sciences, however, causality remains a top priority. Thus, a significant interdisciplinary rift developed in established scientific procedures. Yet, some physicists still wanted to know why their equations worked, and some still postulated causality despite its diminished stature. Metaphysics has a rightful place in science and revive a forgotten approach, consupponibility, for testing metaphysical assumptions and theories. A set of fundamental assumptions and theories are consupponible if they exist without contradicting one another. Importantly, a single contradiction among the set falsifies the entire paradigm. To demonstrate the concepts associated with fundamental assumptions and a paradigm, this work analyses a paradigm based on infinitely fractal matter. Just like Popperian falsifiability, a large set of prohibitive fundamental assumptions allows proponents, opponents, and undecided investigators a means for falsifying the infinitely fractal universe model if the paradigm incorrectly describes the universe. That is, the goal is never to prove the paradigm, which is impossible. Instead, the goal is to attempt to disprove the paradigm by finding contradictions. Repeated failures to disprove the paradigm increase the likelihood of its correctness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]