Jake, my question to you, is:

Is it "scientific" to prohibit the existence of something that cannot be proved or disproved?

Mike, if something is accepted as being without the pale of experimental proof, there is no reason to waste time just thinking about how to set up the experiments. Experiments are set up only to prove, never to disprove. Those who fail to prove anything are discarded or published in The Journal of Negative Results, serving to warn others not to engage in wasteful endeavors. Experiments are also devised to test an important discovery published by other scientists. This is done mainly when replicability opens the way to exploit the new findings for new experiments now possible.

This reminds me of the following experience. After I published the discovery of the Folic Acid Binding Protein in Cali, I was invited to Jerusalem to pursue this finding. The conditions were set up for the use of radioactive reagents in new experiments. I was able to show, using a mathematical formula of my own, that a new radioactive reagent was very impure. Thus, I found a way of testing the reagent's purity and its degree. Simultaneously, a scientist friend in Boston was doing a similar work, and he published his results without knowing about my own work. He reached the conclusion that I was wrong in my theoretical postulations. For his misfortune, he was working with reagents of his own making, while I used those purposely prepared by a reputable firm. My results were confirmatory, becoming soon the basis for the only method in use to determine folic acid concentrations in biological fluids. The radioactive reagent was purified according to my instructions and, once it was made available, I could cease spending valuable time in my own purification process.

If the answer is negative, and I am sure it is, then the pure mechanistic view of the Universe is limited and it is therefore based not on pure logic, but rather on other human biases.

Logic attempts to neutralize human bias. Whenever it succeeds in the attempt, the conclusions attained through its application have an absolute chance of being valid, if they are experimental. This is axiomatic and an example of what is called 'circular thinking.' The determinant 'pure mechanistic' may cause confusion in the present case. I do not view myself as being that simplist. When I say 'physics,' I do not use the qualifier 'pure,' because the way I express my thoughts embodies a 'complex' physics viewpoint.

Indeed, I'd like to synthesize as follows. The Universe evolved and continues doing so through a process of non-linear complexity. The first complexity was the almost instantaneous formation of the first atom, hydrogen. The following complexity was the fusion of hydrogen into helium. This process is accompanied by a very special peculiarity, which is a little mass leftover, which formed the stars. If not for that, there would be no other atoms, no Universe, no human beings. A given level of complexity is called EMERGENT, because something completely new emerges. You know, the oxygen we inspire combines in the cell's mitochondria with hydrogen atoms present in the molecule of glucose breakage products. Water is formed, with the release of chemical energy, which is stored as ATP, the main 'life battery.' Would you consider water as the expected result of oxygen and hydrogen reacting? And would you believe that the explosion resulting from their combination could be harnessed as potential energy? Phenomena appearing after the first emergent and belonging to the same level of complexity, are RESULTANTS, yet they augment the state of complexity. Would you call such evolvement 'purely mechanistic'?

Yesterday I figured a new explication of some aspects of the Universe, as a derivative of recent biological scientific (experimental) findings. It deals with what I call 'Cosmic Clock (Time)' and 'System Clock (Time),' the idea being that time is a dimension that works differently, according to the energy of the system where it transpires (galaxies, star systems, perhaps even planets).