I haven&#x27;t had the time before. And I stand to my claims.<p>Searching for his CV didn&#x27;t help: now I forced 
me through both his CV and this article. He didn&#x27;t study physics but &quot;Computational Psychology.&quot;(1)<p>And sadly it shows: Everything &quot;quantum&quot; he mentions in the article is simply invalid, easy to see for anybody with enough  knowledge of physics. Quantum randomness occurs on different scales than where he tries to involve it.<p>Where he doesn&#x27;t involve &quot;quantum&quot; the claims sound better.<p>The sad part is that he certainly had the chance to consult with the physicists. Why he haven&#x27;t had, of if he had, why he ignored it, I don&#x27;t know.<p>1) <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cogsci.uci.edu&#x2F;~ddhoff&#x2F;media&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;donald-hoffman-vita.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cogsci.uci.edu&#x2F;~ddhoff&#x2F;media&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;donald-hoffman-vita....</a>