This appears to be WOO(caps are intentional) on first look, but the author does make some fairly sound arguments, at least in his synopsys. I guess I'll have to read the book with my woo meter fully charged. If his assertion is that the universe is recreated by human consciousness every moment, then he falls into a black hole of solipsism that I don't think he can escape. I have given a lot of thought on how perception may determine reality and how the observer is a variable of the quantum mechanics of reality. Stephen Hawking's thought has some convergence with this postulations lately.
Hawking is quoted in the July/August 2009 issue of Discover magazine as follows ("Return of the Invisible Man," pp. 50-51):
"Hawking's most recent work explores the implications of the notion that the universe is a giant quantum phenomenon. The problem with conventional attempts to understand the cosmos, he now believes, is that researchers have failed to appreciate the full, bizarre implications of quantum physics. These efforts to create a unique theory that would explain all the properties of the universe are therefore doomed to fail. Hawking refers to such attempts as `bottom-up' theories because they assume the universe had a unique beginning and that its subsequent history was the only possible one.
"Hawking is now pushing a different strategy, which he calls top-down cosmology. It is not the case, he says, that the past uniquely determines the present. Because the universe has many possible histories and just as many possible beginnings, the present state of the universe selects the past. `This means that the histories of the Universe depend on what is being measured,' Hawking wrote in a recent paper, `contrary to the usual idea that the Universe has an objective, observer-independent history.'"
Dr. Lanza insists that future theories of the universe will be biocentric in nature. That Dr. Hawking might agree, in a complete reversal from his past writing about this, certainly raises the most intriguing of possibilities, does it not?
Ideas such as this are not complete woo, since at a quantum level the universe appears to behave in counter-intuitive ways and it has been shown experimentally that observation affects outcome. But I would say that this falls into the category of an "extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence", and the problem is that unless we can come up with a way to test the idea it isn't science, just a clever idea.
How would one go about testing the proposition that the very act of looking at the universe changes its history? Trying to flesh such an idea out suffers from the fact that if Hawkings is correct and that we have been funneled into the universe we observe by the fact of our observation from an essentially infinite set of possible starting points, the myriad of other possibilities have disappeared and left no evidence for us to detect.
I wasn't really thinking in terms of 'intelligence' or consciousness. I was thinking of like as that 7 grams that goes away on most human deaths that science has been able to explain. Life is that thing that animates and allows growth and change of biologically based systems. Again, back to the 'intelligent' virus that finds ways to rapidly adjust to new threats and attack new host. Life may be accidental, but it seems determined to continue the existance of its 'self', genes, and species. That in itself indicates, at least to me, a force of nature as powerful as gravity and the forces that bind atoms and molecules. Particularly if it is accidental and not 'created' by some intelligence of thoughful 'creator' then that drive may be elemental to the universe and the reason it exist in a way that allows living changing things to exist, mutate and progress toward more dependable methods of existance, survival, intellect and concious awareness especially curiousity and drive to learn and create things that have nothing to do with survival.
Regardless of the form it takes, life, at least in this universe, is probably all of one fabric, and that fabric may be what Hawkings and the other author are perceiving as having a causitive nature on the way the universe operates to make it successful.
Now I really get WOO on ya ass and this should probably be in the religion section or have my atheist nexus account expunged but:
If there is or every will be a 'GOD' it is probably creating itself now in this universe as the seeds of life growing into consciousness spread and evolve across space/time.