I get really suspicious when I see quantum physics used in this way. It seems like a misdirection. Given the information in the article, it&#x27;s impossible to evaluate his claims--we don&#x27;t have access to the computer models he uses, or the expertise to evaluate his proofs.<p>But there are a lot of gigantic red flags all throughout. Like when he says he&#x27;s mathematically proved that &quot;an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness.&quot; But what it means to &quot;see reality as it is&quot; is exactly what&#x27;s in question! How could he possibly create a mathematical proof of a concept that lacks a definition?<p>This gets even more blatant when he suggests, toward the end, that he&#x27;s &quot;postulating conscious experiences as ontological primitives.&quot; But that would mean that &quot;seeing reality as it is&quot; isn&#x27;t even a coherent concept! If experience itself makes up reality, how could one&#x27;s experiences <i>not</i> correspond to reality?<p>The guy is a crank. What he&#x27;s arguing is a shoddy version of vitalism, dressed up in jargon.