Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@Meerkat_SK5

@Jordan

That is only one of many available interpretations of quantum mechanics, there are others that are deterministic and not dependent on observation. I’m not sure I would rely on indeterminism as a foundational truth, though it may be correct.

NO, this has nothing to do with the different interpretations of quantum mechanics because the Orch-OR theory is supposed to be a “violation” of quantum mechanics where the non-local mind can also collaspe the wave-function as well as material states. More importantly, the Orch-OR theory is supposed be a scientific theory like string theory that proposes a mechanism as to HOW quantum mechanics becomes classical. Wikipedia:

“The mechanism of collapse is not specified by standard quantum mechanics, which needs to be extended if this approach is correct, meaning that Objective Collapse is more of a theory than an interpretation . Examples include the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory and the Penrose interpretation." [emphasis added]

OK, I dug a little bit more into Orch-OR and while I can see where you’re going better, I think a significant issue is that your hypothesis that consciousness impacts mutation seems more like conjecture built on a hypothesis that’s built on one-of-several competing theories. Orch-OR is a hypothesis with major relevant problems (decoherence would be an enormous problem in biochemically relevant conditions) built on objective-collapse theory which is an extension/competitor to quantum mechanics. But no objective-collapse theory has been experimentally verified, so whether objective-collapse is “true” is an open question. But the biggest problem with this “arm” of your hypothesis is that extending from Orch-OR (consciousness as a quantum phenomenon) to “consciousness could be responsible for many/most/all mutations” is pretty much just conjecture. My opinion is that this moves the hypothesis out of the realm of science into science-grounded philosophy. I would put Orch-OR in that category as well.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Jordan

How would you demonstrate that the experiment is either guided or unguided? You can’t just insert human “guidance” and declare it falsifiable. You need to demonstrate that God does not “guide” during the experiment. I don’t know how to do that, do you?

No, all a biochemist or biologist has to do to falsify the hypothesis is produce (new) digital information within any possible natural condition that does not require his assistance.

But how would you rule out other minds? Just because the experiment designer doesn’t “assist” doesn’t mean another mind couldn’t, right? How can you control that variable?

I honestly don’t know how “there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged” is significant.

@Meerkat_SK5

I should have said, “God guided all life on earth”, which is actually the same thing as saying " an intelligent designer must exist to guide all life on earth ”.

These are actually quite different. I think you should think about that for a while.

@Meerkat_SK5 , at this point I think I’ve given your hypothesis as much as I can for a bit. I think I understand what your hypothesis is a lot better and it’s a stimulating idea. I would consider it an interesting “what if?” but I’m afraid I still wouldn’t consider it a scientific hypothesis (falsifiable, testable, making predictive claims, etc.)