The CTMU makes no predictions. We can explain the universe without it.

Source: http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=6;t=000351
 * In theoretically (cognitively) connecting perceptual reality in an explanatory causal network, one can't always progress by short obvious steps; sometimes one must plunge into an ocean of non-testability in order to come up with a superior testable description on the far shore (think of this kind of insight as analogous to irreducible complexity, but often followed by a simplificative "refolding stage"). In other words, it is not always easy to distinguish (empirically fruitful) science from nonscience as science progresses; one must rely on logic and mathematics in the "blind spots" between islands of perceptibility.
 * The scientific value of the CTMU resides largely in the fact that within its framework, certain logical truths can be regarded as scientific truths (as opposed to tentatively-confirmed scientific hypotheses).