I actually do focus there at some points, and provide a theoretical explanation I have studied and discussed for what you stated here: The macroscopic world appears unaffected by changes in the sub-atomic quantum realm from our vantage point of having our consciousness fundamentally focused only the macroscopic world (at least typically) because it is heavily influenced by the consensus mindset of collective humanity, and by extension any other sentient organisms that may co-inhabit the greater universe with us in deep space. This is why the art of "magick"--i.e., the act of one or a few people trying to willfully influence changes in the probability fields of their personal sphere of reality--is so difficult, and why it generally results in a series of cumulative but subtle effects on personal events and experiences over a long period of sustained practice and focus rather than dramatic alterations in the very fabric of matter.

This is an art that only a small number of people practice in any given era, relatively few have the determination to keep up the discipline and practice, and fewer still ever actually master completely. This is what I meant when I said that going against the subconsciously maintained consensus is analogous to trying to run uphill as fast as you can downhill, because you are attempting to consciously go against the subconsciously stable consensus consciousness and the force of gravity, respectively. Needless to say, this phenomenon can be subjected to scientific scrutiny and research within the limits of modern scientific technology, instrumentation, and methodologies, and dismissing it out of hand rather than subjecting it to this scrutiny is neither scientific nor rational, but serves a strong political and ideological imperative that are very important to a specific worldview.

The fact that Dante repeatedly cites the work of physicists who agree with his ideology doesn't dismiss or invalidate the fact that other physicists and members of related disciplinary fields (e.g., mathematicians, cosmologists, astrophysicists, theoretical vs. research physicists) disagree with him and the gross materialist ideology. I explained the politicized aspects of science that may well underlie some or even many of these dismissals for patently unscientific reasons, something that we of this community in particular are well aware of (albeit on a different level), as are many maverick scientists who have been dismissed as crackpots--history has shown that some were do denounced deservedly, and others most certainly undeservedly; I have no doubt the same disparity of justification will be proven true of the many accused "crackpots" of today as well. I also showed in my latest response to Dante's lengthy rebukes (nice to see someone other than us are taking the time to read them!) that these theories are indeed supported by actual theoretical physicists in addition to those in the field who do not support them, and that many areas of scientific research are interconnected, including different sub-branches of physics (i.e., theoretical and experimental research).