I have a lot to say about this, but I feel it's a little "unfair" that I would have to think up and write down a reply as lengthy as the above article itself in order to do so, so I'll try to make it brief.
So - Robert Lanza proposes a new, unifying scientific theory of the universe. A scientific theory should start with observations of occurrences in the universe, and be a set of individually tested hypothesis that come together, and make predictions that pan out. I'm a little puzzled by this essay, because I'm a little uncertain of if he really means what he says quite literally or not.
Like when he says:
It seems to me that he actually uses quantum physics as a means to show that this is actually, literally true; that without an (biological) observer, there's no reality. This is not a new thought by any means; I've seen it mentioned many times before (tree falling in the woods?). -Perhaps I'm pummeling a straw man by thinking he means this literally, but it sure seems that way from this article.
I also find Lanza's way of arguing for his 'theory' a little strange. First, he argues:
In other words; science has been preoccupied with what it can prove in the physical world, and in making calculations that make verifiable predictions about the real world. But we make those predictions, the 'stories', the theories, based on observing something we therefore have created. And that as such, those scientific theories and predictions are virtually worthless at describing the universe. This is an attack on scientific methodology.
Then he suddenly turns right around and uses one specific interpretation of quantum physics and trusts that part of current scientific research entirely, because that "story" happens to support his theory?? What happened to "Most of these comprehensive theories are no more than stories that fail to take into account one crucial factor: we are creating them. It is the biological creature that makes observations, names what it observes, and creates stories" ? Doesn't this apply in like measure to quantum physics? Is it not likely that we will know more about how it works as we make more advances even in this field?
Robert Lanza's main point seems to be that he has come up with a unifying theory of the universe based in biology. I find it a little strange then, that he uses all other scientific disciplines to describe his theory except biology. Is there anything in this essay that is explained from biology? Only if you make a circular argument: "If I am right, biological entities - as observers - create reality because [my interpretation of] quantum physics seem to lead to that conclusion, and since reality is here, it must be created by biological entities, and I am right."
Now - I should say I understand that his 'theory' is an attempt, at least as he sees it, to unify several scientific disciplines. As such, it's not so strange that he would include physics. But he is a biologist. Where is the biological argument? As mentioned, it seems to me that he has arrived at a conclusion based on some version of an argument from incredulity (from findings in physics), and therefore has decided that since we are the observers, and we are biological, it follows that we create physical reality, and that it's therefore a theory rooted in biology. This to me is a circular argument.
I am curious of how this would work in the real world too. If the above quote is true and literal, it makes a few predictions. It means 'reality' was far 'smaller' before than it is today. A few billion little "bubbles of existence" coinciding will describe - and therefore "put into existence" - a whole lot more 'things' than say a million such "bubbles" (living, biological entities) a few million years ago would. Also, the 'bubbles' back then would be much more spatially separated. Did the matter in the universe even exist back then, apart from the few stars they could directly observe?
It also leads us down the path to conclude that before any biological living things emerged, nothing physical existed either, but since matter started to exist at some point, some kind of observer would have to be present in order to start it all. This of course would be popular with theists of any kind, but it becomes supernatural and philosophical rather than a scientific theory real fast. Come to think of it, this all becomes so surreal that I can't believe he means this in the most literal sense. However, there is that quote above... Hmm...
So - he roots this 'theory' in biology, because to him, biological creatures more or less create reality by observing it. OK. But what then when we send probes to other planets, places never seen by the human eye, or any other biological eye? When we get pictures back from that planet's surface, how can it show us anything at all? It shouldn't exist (at least not the parts of it that have not been directly observed before from telescopes). The probe/satellite is not an 'entity' at all; it's just a piece of highly ordered matter picking up photons etc. emitted from the object and turned into digital data that we can play back once we receive it back on earth. If a nuclear blast of a hydrogen bomb evaporates a biological entity like a human being and makes an imprint of that persons features on the wall he/she stood in front of, and no one else were around at the time, is the resulting image on the wall then an "observance"? If so, it was made by an inanimate 'object', not a biological entity, just like the images in the satellite would be produced from inanimate processes. So objectively, the satellite would send back images of an object not observed by any biological entity, and therefore - according to this theory - the object shouldn't exist so as to be recorded. Does it work because even though the data was collected mechanically, we would be the ones interpreting it? If so, wouldn't any kind of data about the physical world be different for every single observer / interpreter? Could we collaborate on anything when it comes to describing the universe?
Now - of course - - although I don't want to put words in his mouth or a position he does not agree with - - one could say that these things can be measured etc. because there are other, invisible living entities observing them and making them exist. First of all, we are in that case back to a supernatural view that science cannot comment on other than to say it's impossible to verify the existence of such creatures, and second of all, it would fly in the face of Lanza's theory, as he is a biologist and his theory is supposed to be rooted in biology.
I also find these quotes a little strange, coming from someone as intelligent and educated as this:
Modern science cannot explain why the laws of physics are exactly balanced for animal life to exist. For example, if the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin. If the strong nuclear force were decreased by two percent, atomic nuclei wouldn’t hold together. Hydrogen would be the only atom in the universe. If the gravitational force were decreased, stars (including the sun) would not ignite. These are just three of more than 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that they cannot be random. Indeed, the lack of a scientific explanation has allowed these facts to be hijacked as a defense of intelligent design.
As we have seen, the world appears to be designed for life not just at the microscopic scale of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself. In cosmology, scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that make it appear as if everything it contains—from atoms to stars—was tailor-made for us. Many are calling this revelation the Goldilocks principle, because the cosmos is not too this or too that, but just right for life. Others are calling it the anthropic principle, because the universe appears to be human centered. And still others are calling it intelligent design, because they believe it’s no accident that the heavens are so ideally suited for us. By any name, the discovery is causing a huge commotion within the astrophysics community and beyond. At the moment, the only attempt at an explanation holds that God made the universe. But there is another explanation based on science. To understand the mystery, we need to reexamine the everyday world we live in. As unimaginable as it may seem to us, the logic of quantum physics is inescapable. Every morning we open our front door to bring in the paper or to go to work. We open the door to rain, snow, or trees swaying in the breeze. We think the world churns along whether we happen to open the door or not. Quantum mechanics tells us it doesn’t.
He manages to use both the 'Goldilocks' and 'anthropic principle' labels and explain what the argument is about (as it is often used by creationists and IDers), but somehow fails to explain the most common 'rebuttal' to the argument. Instead he creates a false dichotomy by saying that there are only two proposed explanations; God or - of course - his own theory. There is a third (and probably more) option. And, in fact, it even somewhat touches on the principle in Lanza's theory, but in a different way: We are here to observe the universe. If all these 'just so' properties hadn't been the way they are, we wouldn't have been here to talk about them. In other words, it's possibly the opposite of what Lanza proposes; If the universe was not conducive to intelligent life in any way because it's properties were slightly different from how they are now, there would be no one here to marvel over it. It could still exist in some way, there just wouldn't be anyone there to see it. As another example, the argument is also that the Earth is placed in just the correct distance etc. from the sun so as to be able to support life. A little closer would be too hot, a little farther away too cold. Although this is not entirely correct, there is a point to be made there. But as above, it can be followed through quite simply: Let's move the earth out to where Mars is, or the other way to where Venus is. It would be either too cold or too hot to sustain (human) life. How many people live on Mars and Venus and marvel at how exact those planets' positions are? None. Why? Because human life cannot exist there as-is. If we somehow could, and thrived in the high or low temperature, pressure etc., we would have marveled over that.
This version of quantum mechanics has become increasingly popular in the last few years, in New Age, creationist and ID circles. "There's an uncertainty in science? Wow. Did it say the outcome depends on the observer? Wow. Let's put our philosophy into that uncertainty."
I said I'd try to make this brief, and I've failed. I'll just say - before this forum software eats up my work as it usually does - that it seems to me that Lanza thought to himself, like many many people before him: "Man, this is incredible. This is soo complex and beautiful. I wonder what that worm thinks, if anything? What is consciousness? Why am I here? Is this all there is?". Not so strange that he would ask those questions and think like that. Most people do at some point. but then it seems he made up his mind; "This can't be all there is, we are more than the sum of our parts (of which I partially agree), there has to be something more - - and look, quantum physics says there's a possibility that it's so. I'll use that in my theory."
I can't really see that he has even used the scientific method to come to his theory/conclusion. And why should he, since he thinks it's all just 'stories' based on observing things that are uncertain in the first place? Is he using science in an (possibly inadvertent) effort to 'debunk' science? Does that work or make sense?
What predictions does his theory make about the world, that are not already made by quantum physics and other disciplines of science? Wouldn't one such prediction have to be that without biological entities to observe matter, matter wouldn't exist at all, and in fact doesn't exist at all, only the probability or possibility of matter? Then how is it we can use non-biological systems to record data about areas of the universe never seen by any biological organism (at least not directly observed by one as we conduct the experiments and mechanically collect the data)?
Is the universe a mysterious place? Yes. Does science have all the answers? No. Would it help science to "step outside the box" and take metaphysics into account? I don't think so; it would become philosophy, not science. In what way would this 'unifying theory' of Lanza propel science forward? What would science gain, as the discipline trying to explain physical phenomena in the universe? The 'knowledge' that nothing is certain? That any collecting of data is worthless, because it is conducted by biological entities that are influencing the result on both a microscopic and macroscopic level? To me, this seems more like the death of the natural sciences than anything, if taken seriously. Which of course would be lauded by many, but what would we end up with? No possible true knowledge at all? Maybe I'm committing the crime of making a false dichotomy myself here, but I need help in order to see it another way.
Or is his theory more "benign" and I'm misunderstanding the whole thing? Perhaps he's saying that of course all of physical reality is always there, observed or not, but that it's only when it's observed that we can collect any kind of data about it? Well, if so, that would be so self evident as to be idiotic. "You can only tell the color of the car by looking at it." Well, duh.
It seems to me from this article however, that he's saying that without me (or someone else nearby) observing the car, it would literally not be there. Welcome to the insane asylum.