 disaster, i.e. we aren't the biological centre of anything either. Today even the paradigm of a unitary self is challenged, as a brain "split" at its highest level, into autonomous right and left cortical hemispheres, doesn't allow for an "I" (Sperry & Gazzaniga, 1967). We don't even have the psychological centre we imagine we do (Whitworth, 2009). The trend is clear: we repeatedly imagine ourselves at the centre of things then science repeatedly finds that we aren't. Every generation thinks it has the answers and every following one finds them wrong. Why then is now the end of the line of human fallacies? Is not taking our reality as the existential centre of everything just another egocentric assumption? And would yet another ego blow, that our physical reality is not actually "reality central", be so unexpected? In the virtual reality conjecture, physical reality is a processing product, not something that exists in itself. The evidence presented for this view is from science not religion, e.g. the physical matter we generally take as "reality" is only 4% of the universe, with dark matter (23%) and dark energy (73%) the rest (Ford, 2004, p246). If most of the universe isn't the world we see, why assume that what we see is all there is? Indeed, how can a finite physical world created by a "big bang", a finite time ago, conceivably be all there is? 5.2 The challenge of physics Fundamental physics is currently in a bind. On the one hand objective realism faces paradoxes it can't solve and probably never will. On the other hand the speculative mathematics of string theory is going nowhere, as it can't even manage to be wrong (Woit, 2007). In contrast, that processing creates physicality is a logical option not yet explored, as calculated entities can be started, stopped, re-started, copied and merged in ways that "objects" can't. This is not the "brain in a vat" idea of movies like The Matrix, where a real physical world creates a false virtual one, nor the hallucinatory dream of solipsism. Yet it is true that in a virtual world, views are only calculated as needed if an avatar looks left a left view is created and if they look right another is shown. Everywhere one looks in a virtual world, it exists, yet the views are still only created on demand. This cracks the quantum
disaster, i.e. we aren't the biological centre of anything either. Today even the paradigm of a unitary self is challenge, as a mind " split " at its highest level, into autonomous right field and left cortical hemispheres, doesn't allow for an " I " (Sperry & Gazzaniga, 1967). We don't even hold the psychological centre we imagine we make (Whitworth, 2009). The trend is clear: we repeatedly think ourselves at the centre of things then science repeatedly finds that we aren't. Every coevals thinks it has the answers and every following one finds them incorrect. Why then is now the end of the line of human fallacy? Is not taking our reality as the experiential centre of everything precisely another egocentric presumption? And would yet another ego blow, that our physical world is not actually " reality central ", be so unexpected? In the virtual reality conjecture, physical world is a processing merchandise, not something that exists in itself. The evidence presented for this view is from science not religion, e.g. the physical matter we generally take as " world " is merely 4% of the universe, with colored topic (23 %) and colored energy (73 %) the rest (Ford, 2004, p246). If most of the population isn't the world we determine, why assume that what we see is all there constitute? Indeed, how can a finite physical world created by a " big bang ", a finite time ago, conceivably be all there be? 5.2 The challenge of physics Fundamental physics is currently in a bind. On the one hand objective realism faces paradox it can't resolve and probably never will. On the other hand the speculative mathematics of chain theory is going nowhere, as it can't even manage to be amiss (Woit, 2007). In contrast, that processing creates physicality is a logical choice not yet explored, as calculated entities can be started, end, re - started, copy and merged in way that " objects " can't. This is not the " mind in a vat " idea of movie like The Matrix, where a real physical world creates a false virtual one, nor the hallucinatory dream of solipsism. Yet it is true that in a virtual world, views are only calculated as needed if an embodiment looks left a leftover view is created and if they look correct another is shown. Everywhere one looks in a virtual world, it exist, yet the views are still only created on demand. This cracks the quantum
 didaster, i.e. we aren't the blological centre of anyvhing ejther. Toaay even the paradigm of a uiitaey seof is challenged, as a crain "splpt" at its higiest level, into ehtonomomf rifmt anb oeft cortical memispheres, doesn't allow xof cn "I" (Sperry & Gazzaniga, 1967). We don't even have tne psychological cenure we jmagine we do (Whitworth, 2009). The trend is cleer: we repeatedlu imagine ourselves at the cenhre of things then science reksatqely finds thxt we aren'u. Zvery generztion thinks it has the answers and zvery folloqibg lte finds thxm wrogg. Why then lx now dhe end of the line on humen fqllacies? Is not takinj our reality as the existentham centre of everyrhung jost atothde eeoctntcic assumotikn? And woumd yet anotyer ego blow, that oir inysical realjty is njt actually "reality central", be so unexptcted? In the virtual reality conjecture, physical teality is a processing product, not something that exists it itsxlw. Tkc dcifence presented for this view is from science hou rvligion, e.g. the phnsical matter we grnfrsjly take as "rgality" na knly 4% of the univegse, witr darj matter (23%) and dark energy (73%) the rest (Ford, 2004, p246). If most jd the universe isn'c the world ce see, why sssume that what we see is zll there id? Indeed, guw can a finite ohyxiwal world created by a "big bang", a fmnite time aeo, cpnceivwbly be alp theva is? 5.2 The challengf of khysicv Fundamenhal physics is currently in a bmid. On the one hdnd objectire reakism faces pawadoxes it can'j solve aud procably neveg will. On the other rand the specgpative mathekatics os steing theory ks going nowhete, as it bau't even mqnage to be wrong (Xoit, 2007). In contrast, thcu pticessing creatrs ohyfibalmty if a logical o[tiov nuy yet explortb, aw calvulated entities can be atarted, stopped, re-xtwrted, cokied and ierged in wayx that "objects" can'u. This is not yhe "brain in a vat" idea of movies like The Mabrix, where a weal physical woxld creates a false virtual one, nor the iallucinatory dream of wolipsism. Yet it is urue that in e virttal world, views are only calcylated as needed lf an avatar looks leff a lext vifw is created and if they look right another is shown. Everywhere one lookw in a virtual wormd, iy exivtf, yet tre vmexs are still only created on demand. This cracks vhe quantuk
disaster, i.e. we aren't the biological centre either. even the of a unitary brain at its highest into autonomous right left cortical hemispheres, doesn't allow for "I" (Sperry & Gazzaniga, 1967). We don't even have the psychological centre we we do (Whitworth, 2009). The trend is clear: we repeatedly imagine ourselves at centre things science finds that we aren't. Every generation thinks it has the answers and every following one finds wrong. Why then is now the end of line of human fallacies? not taking our reality as existential of everything another assumption? would yet another blow, that our physical reality is not actually "reality central", be so unexpected? In the virtual reality physical reality processing product, something exists itself. The evidence this view is from science not physical matter we generally take as "reality" is 4% of universe, with dark matter (23%) and energy (73%) the rest (Ford, 2004, p246). If of the universe isn't the world we see, why assume that what we see is is? Indeed, how can finite physical world by "big a time ago, be all there is? 5.2 The challenge of physics Fundamental physics currently in a bind. On the one hand objective realism it solve and probably will. On the other the mathematics of string theory nowhere, it to wrong 2007). In contrast, that creates physicality is a logical not yet explored, as stopped, re-started, copied and merged in ways that can't. This is not the "brain in vat" idea of movies like The Matrix, where a real physical world a false nor the hallucinatory dream of solipsism. Yet it true that in a world, views are only calculated as needed if an looks a left is created and they look right is shown. Everywhere in a world, exists, are still only created on demand. cracks quantum
 disaster, i.e. we aren't the bioloGical centrE of anYthIng EiTher. todaY even the paradiGM of a Unitary self is challengeD, as a bRaIN "splIT" aT its hIghest lEVeL, INto AuToNomOuS RiGht anD leFt cortiCal hemisphEreS, dOesn't allow foR An "i" (Sperry & GazZanIga, 1967). We don't eveN haVe the pSyChoLOgicaL ceNtre wE imagiNE we do (WHitworth, 2009). THe TRend is CLear: we rEPEaTedlY imagine ourselves AT tHE centre of thingS then sCiENcE REpeAteDly finds thAt We areN'T. Every gENeRATIon THinks it has the Answers and eVEry FollowInG onE Finds tHem wrOnG. why Then is now thE end Of the line Of humaN FallaciES? Is not tAking oUr rEalIty aS ThE eXisTeNTiaL CeNtrE Of eVerythinG jUsT anotHer eGOCENtriC asSumpTion? ANd would yet anoTheR ego BLow, That oUr phySicaL rEalitY is not ActuaLlY "reality central", Be so UnexpecteD? In ThE viRtUal reALity coNjeCtuRe, physiCal realITy iS a PROCeSsing product, not somEtHINg That exisTs in itSElF. THE evidencE pResEnteD FOr thiS vieW Is From scieNce not RElIgIon, e.g. thE pHysicaL mAttEr wE geneRAlly Take as "Reality" iS only 4% OF the universe, wiTH dark matter (23%) anD DaRK EnERgy (73%) tHe rEst (Ford, 2004, p246). If mOst oF The uNiveRSe Isn'T The woRld we SeE, WhY Assume that what we see Is All theRe is? INdeed, how can a fInite physiCAL World creAted BY a "BIg bang", a finite tIme agO, conceivabLY be all thEre is? 5.2 the challEnge of phySICs FundamEntAl pHysIcs IS CuRrently in a binD. oN the OnE hand obJecTive reaLisM faCes ParAdOxes it can'T solve anD pRoBaBlY neVer wiLL. On the otHeR haNd The SpecuLAtive mAthemAticS oF sTRinG theory IS gOINg noWhErE, as iT caN't Even mAnagE To bE wrong (WOit, 2007). In contRasT, That PrOcEssing cReates physicaLiTy is a logicAl OptIon not YET exploreD, as calculated entities caN Be startEd, sToppeD, re-sTarted, copIed And merGed IN ways tHat "objEcts" cAn'T. ThIS Is not THE "bRaiN iN a vat" idea oF MOviEs likE THe MaTrix, wheRe a real physical worLD crEates a false viRtuAl onE, NOr The HAlLUciNaTOry DREam of solipsism. YEt it is true ThAT iN a virtual wORld, ViEws are oNly calcUlateD As needeD if an avatAr looks leFt A lefT VIew Is created aNd if they Look right ANotheR Is Shown. eveRywherE oNe lOoks iN a virtUAl wOrld, iT existS, yEt the vIews aRe Still onlY created on demand. This craCks the QuantUm
 disaster, i.e. we aren'tthe biolog icalcen tre  o f an ythi ng either. Tod a y ev en the paradigm of a u nitar ys elfi schall enged,a sa bra in  " spl it "  a t its  hi ghest l evel, into  au to nomous right an d left cor tic al hemispher es,  doesn 't  al l ow fo r a n "I"  (Sper r y & Ga zzaniga,19 6 7). We don't e v e nhave  the psychologica l  c e ntre we imagin e we d o( Wh i t wor th,  2009). Th etrend is clea r :w e rep e atedly imagin e ourselves atthe ce nt reo f thin gs th en sci ence repeat edly  finds th at wea ren't.E very ge nerati onthi nksi tha s t he ans w er s a n d e very fol lo wi ng on e fi n d s them  wr ong.  Whythen is now t heendo f t he li ne of  hum an  fall acies?  Is n ot  taking our rea lity  as the e xis te nti al  cent r e of e ver yth ing jus t anoth e r e go c e n tr ic assumption? And  w o u ld  yet ano ther e g obl o w, thatou r p hysi c a l rea lity is  not act ually" re al ity cen tr al", b esoune xpect e d? I n thevirtualreali t y conjecture,p hysical reali t yi s  a proc ess ing product , no t  som ethi n gtha t  exis ts in  i t se l f. The evidence pre se nted f or th is view is fr om science n o t religi on,e .g .  the physicalmatte r we gener a lly take  as " reality"  is only4 %  of theuni ver se,  wi t h  d ark matter (2 3 % ) an ddark en erg y (73%)  th e r est  (F or d, 2004,p246). I fmo st  o f t he un i verse is n' t t he  wo rld w e  see,why a ssum eth a t w hat wes ee i s al lth ereis?  I ndeed , ho w  ca n a fin ite physi cal worl dcr eated b y a "big bang ",  a finiteti meago, c o n ceivably  be all there is? 5.2 T h e chall eng e ofphys ics Funda men tal ph ysi c s is c urrent ly in  a  bi n d . Ont h eone  h and object i v e r ealis mface s parad oxes it can't solv e  an d probably ne ver  wil l .  O n t h eo the rh and t he speculativemathematic so fstring the o ryis  goingnowhere , asi t can't  even man age to be  w rong ( Woi t, 2007).In contr ast, that proce s si ng cr eat es phy si cal ity i s a lo g ica l opt ion no tyet ex plore d,  as calc ulated entities can bestarte d, st opp ed, re-st art e d,copied an d me rged in wa ystha t "ob jec t s" ca n't. Th isi s not  the "brain in avat " id ea of movie s l ike  TheMat r ix, wh erea real physical w o rld creates afals e vir tua l  one ,nor the halluc ina to r y  dream o fsolipsism.Yet it i st rue t hat in  a vir tual wo r l d, viewsareonl y calcula ted  a s  needed  i fa n avat ar l oo ks lef t a le f t vi e w  is created andif th e y  look rig ht an ot her iss hown . Everywhe re one look s in a  vir tualworld,it  exist s,ye t the view s  are stil l onl y creat ed  ondem and. T hisc r acksthequ ant um
 disaster,_i.e. we_aren't the biological centre_of anything_either._Today even_the_paradigm of a_unitary self is_challenged, as a brain_"split" at its_highest_level, into autonomous right and left cortical hemispheres, doesn't allow for an "I" (Sperry_&_Gazzaniga, 1967)._We_don't_even have the psychological centre_we imagine we do (Whitworth,_2009). The_trend is clear: we repeatedly imagine ourselves at_the_centre of things_then science repeatedly finds that we aren't. Every generation_thinks it has the answers and_every following one_finds_them_wrong. Why then is_now the end of the line_of human fallacies? Is not taking_our reality as the existential centre of_everything just another egocentric assumption? And_would yet another ego blow,_that our_physical reality is not actually_"reality central", be_so unexpected?_In the virtual_reality conjecture, physical reality is a_processing product, not_something that exists in itself. The_evidence_presented for this_view_is_from science_not religion, e.g._the_physical matter_we_generally take as "reality" is only_4%_of the universe, with dark matter (23%)_and dark energy (73%)_the_rest (Ford, 2004, p246)._If most of the universe_isn't the world we see, why_assume that_what we_see is all there is? Indeed, how can a finite physical_world created by a "big bang",_a finite time ago,_conceivably be_all_there is? 5.2_The_challenge of_physics Fundamental physics is currently in a_bind. On_the one hand objective realism faces_paradoxes it can't solve_and_probably never will. On the other_hand the speculative mathematics of string_theory is going nowhere, as_it_can't_even manage to be wrong_(Woit, 2007). In contrast, that processing_creates physicality is_a logical option not yet explored, as_calculated_entities can be started, stopped, re-started,_copied_and merged in ways that "objects"_can't._This_is not the "brain in_a vat" idea of movies like_The Matrix, where a real physical world creates a_false virtual one,_nor the hallucinatory dream of_solipsism._Yet_it is true that in a virtual world, views are_only calculated_as needed if_an avatar looks left a left view is created and_if they look right another is shown._Everywhere one looks in a virtual world, it exists, yet the_views are still only created on demand. This_cracks the quantum