the writing smacks of pseudoscience sadly... the idea of 'a mix of quantum and classical' implies a lack of understanding of what quantum mechanics is and speci

the writing smacks of pseudoscience sadly... the idea of 'a mix of quantum and classical' implies a lack of understanding of what quantum mechanics is and specifically the correspondence principle. when did these two things become separate in anything other than some categorisation of our theoretical understanding of things? The entire article is coloured with it which makes it hard to glean any valuable information from. The analogy (?) about light bouncing around proteins, superpositions and collapses is especially confusing. If you look at the paper it does seem genuine and without the hype and bad analogies. (although there is some quite bad grammar, and i am far enough from subjects i am comfortable with that this could be psuedoscience). What I get from this is 'we have done work on a very specific example of quantum computing in nature - that work provides evidence that such approaches are viable'