guess I'm not the only one who thinks so, via discovery magazine

[jarysm]

"The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it. by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman

Comments

[arisrabkin]

This betrays a great deal of confusion about how quantum mechanics works. There's nothing in the QM notion of "wave function collapse" that requires a conscious or living observer. Precisely the main problem with quantum computers is that the wave function for a nontrivial system usually collapses almost instantly -- far before any living thing interacts with the results. The technical term is "decoherence". And it Does Not Require Life. This has been tested very extensively; the experiments are quite simple and straightforward, with no serious difficulties of interpretation.

A few nits, that I think are indicative of how sloppy the authors are:

"If the proposed experiment ends up confirming Penrose’s idea, it would also confirm that quantum effects apply to human-scale objects."It's easy to find examples of human-scale systems with interesting quantum effects. Superconductors and superfluids are both human scale, and both are the result of quantum effects. Lasers are based on quantum effects. Spectral lines are easy to display

[jarysm]

*set annnnnnnnnnd sprung*

Thanks for proving me right.
I fear you are confusing this blog for a corraspondence with the author. May I direct you to his website, over here? ------->
http://www.robertlanza.com/

The topic under discussion HERE is the similarity between the author's assertions and my own. It was a predictable mistake, though. I can see how posting ideas that you disagree with would APPEAR to be an invitation to correct those ignorant to The Truth(tm).
Best of luck convincing the author, Lanza. *thumbs up*

[arisrabkin]

I did notice that, actually, but felt like responding here, since you were describing it as matching your thought.

For the record, it's generally considered poor form (not to mention copyright violation) to reproduce the entirety of someone else's work on a blog. It's also generally better to format quotations as such -- this is what the html "blockquote" tag is for.

[jarysm]

Not knowing html, I thought direct mention of the publication in the title, and the inclusion of the author's introduction would make that clear.
But it is no longer two in the morning and another option appears to me.