While it is interesting that you wanted to beyond the boundaries of the earth, beyond that of the Solar System, and even of galaxies beyond the Milky Way - what you have called infinite universe, that you are trying to think WAY OUTSIDE THE BOX…
…but thinking outside the box, if you cannot tame your imaginations with some boundaries, like thinking what are logically probable that are supported by some evidence, then all you have are just wild flights of imagination, that are just “what if” fictions.
Without evidence, it isnt even hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory.
What you call theories in some of your list are still hypotheses, not theories.
The Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, not a theory.
When you wrote -
“I do no subscribe to any of the six theories of abiogenesis which are…”
They are not “6 theories”, Jimmy. They are 6 models proposed for the Abiogenesis hypothesis. Six “proposed hypothetical” models, 6 proposed scenarios with logical and detailed explanations that goes with each respective scenarios.
And btw, a hypothesis - not talking specifically with Abiogenesis hypothesis, but “hypothesis” in general, here (in this paragraph) - before you start writing any model to a hypothesis, the hypothesis cannot be made of anything at top of one’s head (meaning not some nonexistent & imaginary scenarios, like from dreams or from acid-trip hallucinations or from just inventive made-up imagination alone), a hypothesis
HAS TO BASED ON PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS!
That’s very important before starting a hypothesis, and it is one of the requirements in the Scientific Method, prior to developing a hypothesis.
The starting point of Scientific Method, begins with OBSERVATIONS of some specific phenomena that you might have QUESTIONS you want answers for, like WHAT it is & HOW it works types of questions.
The OBSERVATIONS and QUESTIONS (together) come first, followed by the next step to the Scientific Method, which is - RESEARCH what were or have been “observed phenomena”, trying to understand the observations.
After the research, if the research is falsifiable, then, and only then, can you begin attempting to explain the observed phenomena, the next step to Scientific Method is the FORMULATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS.
A hypothesis not only includes sets of explanations (hence explanatory models), but sets of predictions (predictive models) that you expect the tests (eg evidence or experiments) should meet. The predictions are like setting some benchmarks, when you start testing the hypothesis.
So if the evidence or experiments don’t support the hypothesis’ predictions, then the hypothesis has been refuted…so the hypothesis failed to being incorrect, inaccurate or it is flawed.
Those are the reasons why predictions or predictive are needed to be included in a hypothesis.
Another thing needed in a hypothesis, are methodology of how one would test a hypothesis. So a hypothesis needs to include -
(A) either instructions on how to perform an experiment or experiments (eg what instruments needed to experiment, what instruments needed to observe & measure the experiment, what specimens or samples to use in experiment, etc),
(B) or instructions on where, when and how to find physical evidence, and what instruments or equipment would be needed to locate or identify the evidence.
Performing experiments (A) are usually performed in controlled environments, like in a laboratory. Lab experiments also allowed scientists to controlled as much variables as possible.
B, is where scientists tried to find evidence in the natural environment, outside of the laboratory, hence this would involve possibly fieldwork.
Of course, a scientist might include A & B in his or her hypothesis. The more evidence & test results from lab experiments, the better it is to test the hypothesis.
Once a scientist have completed his or her hypothesis that includes explanations, predictions and methodology of how to test the hypothesis, the scientist can begin the next 2 stages of Scientific Method: TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS, and ANALYSE THE DATA. These 2 steps, actually go together, hand-in-hand. Every time you do the tests, the experiment & evidence should yield some data, like quantities, measurements, etc, and these data have to be analyzed, whether they are same as the previous evidence or experiments. So the more test results from lab experiments or the more evidence acquired, then data needed to be analyzed, and compared, and to determine if these tests & data support or don’t support the hypothesis’ predictions.
The final stage of the Scientific Method is, once you have sufficient evidence and analyzed all the data, then come REPORTING THE CONCLUSION.
I know I have gone beyond what I was saying, a bit off topic, but it is very important for you to understand, that a hypothesis have to be based on observed real-world phenomena, and not something just imagined.
You also need to understand that a hypothesis has to be testable, and eventually tested. And you can only test a hypothesis, if you are capable of finding evidence or performing experiments.
So without the test, then any concept or claim would be deemed unfalsifiable (another word for “untestable”), unfounded and unreasonable speculations.
So going back to your “infinite universe” scenario, if you cannot obtain evidence from a distant star system or from distant galaxy, then all your talk of infinite universe might be interesting, it would be nevertheless impossible to obtain, and therefore your argument be just unattainable and useless speculation.
You have somewhat misguided impression as to what a theory or a hypothesis is. You think there shouldn’t be any limitations, but you are forgetting how would you test your claim? It isn’t science, if you cannot test them.
