Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@Meerkat_SK5

@Jordan

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.

I am not sure why this is relevant. I made it very clear at the start of this topic that I was going to show how "we can test whether a Divine intelligence has and continues to guide evolution, which would make this an improvement of the Modern synthesis rather than a separate explanation. However, this time it will NOT be about trying to prove that God guided evolution or prove God exists at all. "

There is an important lesson you learn when you do actual science that it is very easy to answer the wrong question or different question than the one you thought you were asking. You have to ruthlessly make sure that the experiment tests what you think it tests. I am simply trying to help you explore that more because it seems to me that it could be an issue here. A couple silly examples might be:

Hypothesis: all cars are red
Test: watch airplanes taking of at an airport and record their color

This hypothesis is not falsifiable with this test. The hypothesis is falsifiable, but you have to do the right experiment. That’s one reason falsifiability is not a sufficient condition for “good science”.

Hypothesis: red cars are the best cars
Test: watch they highway and record how many cars of various colors go by

This hypothesis is not falsifiable despite a better test because “best car” has not yet been defined and there is an implicit assumption that the most popular car is the best car and well, that’s not actually the question we’re asking.

Hypothesis: red cars make better time machines
Test: measure the average acceleration of cars of different colors and see if red cars will get to 88 mph faster

The test is easy, but the connection to the hypothesis is dependent on a particular unsubstantiated element. Even if red cars do get to 88 mph faster than any other color, that only helps under a particular version of time machine, which has not yet been verified to be applicable. This hypothesis is not falsifiable, not because the test is bad or not falsifiable, but because the result of the test doesn’t necessarily mean anything for the hypothesis in general.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Jordan

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.

The criticisms raised on their theory have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in the highly prestigious article. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.

You are missing the point. It isn’t that Orch-OR has been proven false (fatal objections), it’s that it hasn’t been showed to be correct (there are competing theories and as of yet no experimental way to distinguish between them). It could be right, but it could also be wrong, so if the test of a hypothesis built on top of it comes back false, you don’t know if it is falsifying your hypothesis or the theory that your hypothesis is built on. You could also be right for the wrong reason. This makes it very difficult to falsify your hypothesis.

BTW, I do know how peer-review works, no need to explain it or how science journals work.

@Meerkat_SK5

Undoubtedly, the Orch-OR theory co-established by theoretical physicist Penrose and neuroscientist Hameroff is currently the most convincing theory.

That may be, but until we know one way or another we have to be careful building hypothesis on top of it and as I pointed out above, it severely limits the falsifiability of testing of such hypotheses.

@Meerkat_SK5

Do you know of a new peer-reviewed objection of their article after 2019 that they failed to address?

That’s not how science works. It’s not a courtroom or a wedding, lack of objection doesn’t make it true.

@Meerkat_SK5

So the only thing that matters is whether it is a testable conjecture at least in principle, which is the whole point of this topic.

And I am trying to help you see that you are not yet there, which is my point. I started by trying to understand your hypothesis, in good faith, and then I was trying to help you refine it into something I felt, as a scientist, that was testable. I have no inherent objection to your hypothesis, it would be a fascinating idea if true. But in science you spend a lot of time tearing apart your ideas (often with the help of other scientists who are experts in the field) and the reason is that it is often difficult to make sure you are accounting for all the possibilities and have narrowed the experiment to test the precise question you’re asking.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Jordan

But how would you rule out other minds?

By using Miller-Urey type experiments to test a variety of possible pre-biotic conditions in nature according to my methods outlined.

This is because it would show how a possible condition could have created or developed life before the existence of ANY finite conscious agents.

If the Miller-Urey type experiments show that there are pre-biotic conditions that can produce “lifelike molecules” that only falsifies “there are no pre-biotic conditions that can produce lifelike molecules”, that’s it.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Jordan

Just because the experiment designer doesn’t “assist” doesn’t mean another mind couldn’t, right? How can you control that variable?

I am not following you here. Who are these other ghostly minds that you speak of? LOL

Well, as a Christian I’d say God, but you’re the one positing that minds can mutate DNA. How do we know what minds are around? I’m just pointing out that you are assuming that the experimenter is the only mind around. Since it’s pretty unlikely that humans were around for the beginning of life I’m not sure why you’re trying to test whether the human mind can produce “lifelike molecules”.

@Meerkat_SK5

So I hope you turn your opinion into an actual objection that I can actually respond to next time.

@Meerkat_SK5

Again, if you don’t have a coherent objection I can dissect and properly respond to, then I have no choice but to take it as a concession on your part and will just move on to the next topic, which will be a common design model.

1. “coherent objection”?? that’s a bit of a low blow, considering you asked me to look at it as a scientist
2. “concession” is not something for you to assume but for me to offer. I’m not trying to be adversarial here, so “conceding” is an odd word choice. I’m simply doing what I would do with fellow scientists, trying to understand the hypothesis and making sure we put it through the wringer to make sure it’s well formed and testable.
3. don’t wait on me, I’m done. If you don’t want help, I’m not going to waste my time.