Reddit replies:

This is a good example of a poor understanding of quantum mechanics being used as a basis for bad philosophy. People think that just because they throw around the observations of quantum mechanics that the stated observation must be true for all aspects of the universe and fail to account for the fact that we don't live in a quantum world. There is some good philosophy that can be had, but using bad scientific understanding is not good philosophical practice.

...

That is philosophy, not science. Quantum physics tells us that on the quantum level, observation affects interpretation of data. It is not saying anything about things on our normal observational scale (which may be philosophized about, as in, is the red you see the same red I see, or even does what the word color mean to me, mean the same to you, but this is one form of insanity to question).

What I do believe is that everyone has different systems of belief and perspectives socially, philosophically, spiritually, and existentially. Observationally I think it's important to remain grounded in reality, if one wishes to be scientific.

The belief that one creates what they see works for building technology. The belief that one creates what they see merely by thinking about it is called hallucinating. Which can be philosophized about, sure. But observable, testable, scientifically? That could go back to quantum physics.

But if you go in that circle, you may as well end up with the belief system that you are the only being that exists, or that everyone's realities are possibly totally different and by some divine magic, we manage to interact, which may be some harmonious balance between the mind's interpretation of data and the data itself. It is a fine fine line. Shape your future.

More Anais Nin:

http://pandawhale.com/post/37967/why-emotional-excess-is-essential-to-writing-and-creativity-brain-pickings