I'll take that as a no you haven't seen it and therefore cannot actually make an informed comment. You can validate it any way you want but you're not the publisher tossing out a poorly written manuscript, you're a zealot denying the value differing ideas. As I said prior, quantum physics nor any other area of science has made any progress towards explaining conciousness. So, by default, the ideas should be taken as philosophy... Can I point out once more that you wound't understand the maths even if it was correct it makes no difference whether or not he's right - you are denying it based on your beliefs and that his conflict with yours. @AJC this is the kind of objectivity I have been looking for in the discussion. I hadn't thought of QM as problematic as you say it is, but I had always taken the term theoretical physicist very literally. Theory is theory, practice is practice. I understand that some of the theory is based on proven laws but from what I can gather a lot of it isn't. That sort of material requires me to put way to much faith in the unknown... just like organised religion. I just can't validate putting any more faith in a professor preaching his PHD, than I can a priest belting the bible. I see QM a little like neuro-science in that it has the potential to unlock answers to some of humanity's unanswered questions. That said, due to the erratic nature of discoveries it could happen next year or never. What worries me more is that with its popularity science has become obsessed with painting paradigm as fact (I see this as a flaw in capitalism, not science). It slows progress, but until more governments shift away from religion and invest in science, the money simply isn't there for fundamental research. The movie is on youtube if you want to check it out.