How does the falsifiability criterion handle thought experiments that can't be physically tested?

Your question touches on a genuine tension in philosophy of science, but the preprints provided don't directly address thought experiments and falsifiability together. Let me explain what they *do* clarify about falsifiability itself, then note the gap.

What the archive shows about falsifiability in practice

The most relevant piece here is the discussion of LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) and Popper's falsification criterion [AG-2025.04-393]. That paper makes a crucial point: what looks like a decisive falsification often isn't. The Hubble tension—a real discrepancy between early and late-universe measurements—appears to be a clear contradiction. But the paper argues many such "falsifications" actually reflect "methodological or interpretive disagreements rather than from clear falsifications in the strict Popperian sense." In other words, messy real-world data doesn't always give you the clean yes-or-no verdict Popper imagined.

This matters because it reveals falsifiability's hidden assumption: that you can unambiguously set up an experiment and read nature's answer. Reality is messier.

The deeper problem: observational indistinguishability

A more troubling case comes from cosmology. Work on the beginning of the universe shows that "observers cannot collect sufficient data to determine whether" their spacetime satisfies certain mathematical conditions [AG-2026.03-104]. Two radically different models—one with a cosmic beginning, one without—can be "observationally indistinguishable" from inside the universe. You cannot falsify one with data available to you, even in principle.

Similarly, some quantum gravity models "may not be subject to experimental checks, even if they turn out to be mathematically well defined" because of fundamental limits in how measurement and gravity interact [AG-2024.11-138].

The gap: thought experiments aren't addressed

However, none of these preprints discuss thought experiments specifically—idealised scenarios (like Schrödinger's cat or Einstein's falling elevator) that can't be physically tested but play a major role in theoretical physics. The archive doesn't really answer your question about how falsifiability handles those.