Thank you BTS,
An interesting read indeed, which leaves me with rather mixed feelings... perhaps due to my reading it very late last night, and being too sleepy to reply right away; perhaps also due to the author's loose - if not sloppy -- use of concepts leading to rather questionable inferences...
Are we actually needing/missing a new theory of the universe (a particularly ill-chosen word imho) or a refinement/development of the old theories of knowledge(Kant etc.), taking seriously into account the "death" of Descartes' "God," the absence of any "Universal Observer," and the growing awareness that "knowledge" not only relies on, but is, an intersubjective network (biological, but also cultural and technical) productionof symbolism and imagination?
Everything, I feel, will need to be thought again from this perspective (which btw is directly related to the very notion of prospettiva in Renaissance science and art): what is "observation"? what is "perception"? If the "unobserved" or the "unperceived" is actually "unknown," how can we deduce anything about it, including that it "does not exist"?
Focusing on biology and questioning the borders between "human," "animal" and "vegetal" (why not also "chemical" and "physical," while we're at it?) seems like an excellent philosophical idea. But my intuition is that it can't be done without leaving at rest the very notion of a "universe" before it rises again in fresh terms (borrowing from an untranslatable Derrida's pun, la question se repose -- the question "rests" before it "is raised again").