I read Robert Anton Wilson's Quantum Psychology some time ago, which is a similar display of pseudoscientific dribble. I don't see why Chopra doesn't pick organic chemistry as a means for explaining how we can alter our world with our consciousness. It's always struck me how people are willing to believe what Chopra says quantum mechanics is, and yet don't bother to read what Shrodinger, Heisenberg of Feynman have to say about it. IMHO the reason is because what Chopra says is comforting and supportive of a human-centric view of the universe; but c'mon, grow up already. How much evidence do we need before we can grasp the situation that this is not all about us?
Have you read David Bohm, mk? http://www.amazon.com/Undivided-Universe-Ontological-Interpr... A far more rigorous approach likely motivated by same spiritual longings. (See also his dialogs with Krishnamurti.) > a human-centric view of the universe Hardly an unreasonable [initial] view point for a sentient species given the use-case: why am I here and what to do? The insistence that it is incorrect in principle (as it implies distinct 'subjective realities') was actually undermined recently. (Something to do about a quantum tree falling in a forest with no one to hear not making any noise -- I'll see if I can find it.) (That said, Deepak never passed the initial smell test for me.) [edit]