Lanza's main argument seems to be that there is evidence that observation affects causation in the material world.
There is zero evidence for that. If that is his argument, he is misunderstanding the observer effect.
He is suggesting a paradigm shift is in order because the irregularities in the traditional conception of the universe are mounting up
Such as?
If we ask Lanza how his idea is falsifiable it might be a fair question to ask how the traditional view of the world is falsifiable.
Pick an example I will explain it to you.
Why assume it's the former and not the latter?
Because every example of consciousness requires matter and every example of matter we have requires a universe. All of the evidence is on one side of the argument.
Just because it seems a bit Star Trek or Twilight Zone, doesn't mean it's not true. Just because one view is traditional and dominant doesn't in itself make it more rational than an alternative if the alternative has equal explanatory power.
Such is the justification for every ridiculous idea and crackpot theory ever put forth with all of the evidence against it. "Well, you can't prove it's not true". Not only is it a pointless argument to be dismissed without consideration, it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about science.
Just because one view is traditional and dominant doesn't in itself make it more rational than an alternative if the alternative has equal explanatory powerIf it has more explanatory power, then that means it must be a hypothesis that is falsifiable, testable and have evidence. So far none of the crackpot theories mentioned have any of that.