 itself (Figure 4a). This gives the illogicality of a thing creating itself and doesn't explain the strangeness of modern physics, but it is accepted by most people. The second option argues that since all human perceptions arise from neural information signals, our reality could be a virtual one, which in fiction stories is created by gods, aliens or machines, for study, amusement or profit (Figure 4b). This is not in fact illogical and explains some inexplicable physics, but few people believe that the world is an illusion created by our minds. Rather they believe that there is a real world out there, that exists whether we see it or not. Brian Whitworth Quantum Biosystems 2010, 2 (1) 221-249 245 The third option, of a reality that uses a virtual reality to know itself, is this model (Figure 4c). As this paper asserts and later papers expand, it is logically consistent, supports realism and fits the facts of modern physics. In it, the observer exists as a source of consciousness, the observed also exist as a source of realism, but the observer-observed interactions are equivalent to virtual images that are only locally real. This is not a virtuality created by a reality apart, but by a reality to and from itself. If the physical world is an interface to allow an existence to interact with itself, then it is like no information interface that we know. Appendix A. Common Responses Common responses to the virtual reality conjecture include that it: 1) Is just meta-physics. Meta-physical speculation is untestable ideas about unknowable entities outside the observed world, like the number of angels on a pinhead. In contrast, the virtual reality conjecture is a hypothesis about this world, albeit that meta-physics (outside the world) causes physics (the world). 2) Can't be proved. True, but objective reality theory isn't "proved" either. Science doesn't prove theories absolutely it just rejects improbable ones. In modern physics, it seems increasingly unlikely that the world is an objective reality. 3) Postulates the unseen. Being perceivable is not a demand of science or one could argue that since we can't see atoms they don't exist: 4) "Atomism began life as a philosophical idea that would fail virtually every contemporary test of what should be regarded as „scientific‟; yet, eventually, it became the cornerstone of physical science." [12] p3 5) Contradicts Occam‟s razor. Occ
itself (Figure 4a). This gives the illogicality of a thing creating itself and doesn't explain the unfamiliarity of mod physics, but it is accepted by most people. The second choice argues that since all human perceptions arise from nervous data signals, our reality could be a virtual one, which in fiction stories is created by idol, aliens or machines, for discipline, amusement or profit (Figure 4b). This is not in fact illogical and explains some inexplicable physics, but few citizenry believe that the world is an illusion create by our minds. Rather they believe that there is a actual world out there, that exists whether we see it or not. Brian Whitworth Quantum Biosystems 2010, 2 (1) 221 - 249 245 The third option, of a world that uses a virtual reality to know itself, is this model (Figure 4c). As this paper assert and later papers expand, it is logically consistent, supports realism and fits the facts of modern physics. In it, the perceiver exist as a source of awareness, the observed besides exist as a source of realism, but the observer - observed interaction are equivalent to virtual images that are only locally real. This is not a virtuality created by a world apart, but by a reality to and from itself. If the physical world is an interface to allow an existence to interact with itself, then it is like no information interface that we know. Appendix A. Common Responses Common responses to the virtual reality conjecture include that it: 1) Is barely meta - physics. Meta - forcible guess is untestable ideas about unknowable entities outside the observed world, like the numeral of angels on a pinhead. In contrast, the virtual world conjecture is a guess about this world, albeit that meta - physics (outside the world) causes physics (the earth). 2) Can't be proved. True, but objective world theory isn't " proved " either. Science doesn't prove theory absolutely it just disapprove improbable ones. In modern purgative, it seems increasingly unlikely that the world is an objective reality. 3) Postulates the unseen. Being perceivable is not a demand of science or one could argue that since we can't see atoms they don't exist: 4) " Atomism began animation as a philosophical idea that would fail about every contemporary test of what should be regarded as „ scientific‟; yet, eventually, it became the cornerstone of forcible science. " [ 12 ] p3 5) Contradicts Occam‟s razor. Occ
 itdelf (Figure 4a). This gives the illogicalijy of a vhing cdeating ktself and doesn't explain thx steangebess of modern physics, but it id acceptwd bb most people. Thx second optioh argbew that since akl human parceptions arive fxom neural information signals, our rqality vokld be a virtuwl omq, whjbh in fiction stories is creates by govs, aliens or mavhines, for study, amusement or orofit (Figure 4b). Thls is not ib fasr illogical xnd explains some inexklicable physics, but few people celiere that the wirlf is an illuwion breated by ouv minds. Rather they believe bhat vherw is a real world out there, that exists whether fe see it or not. Bruab Whijwortv Quxbtuo Bjoxyatems 2010, 2 (1) 221-249 245 The thirs option, of a reality that usex w virtual realjty to kgow itself, is this model (Figure 4c). As thps pzper asserts and later papers expand, it is llgically sonsistent, supports realism and fits the facts of modecn phvwics. Kb lt, the observer exists as a source of consciotantss, the observed clso exist as a xokrvg of realism, bot the obssrver-observed integactionf are equivalegt tp virtual images that are obly locally geal. This is not a vircuality creaced by a reslity apart, but by a reclity fo and from itself. Ir the physical wofld iv an inttfface to allow an existencx to nnteract witn itsejf, then it is llne no information lnteryace dhat we knlw. Appendix A. Common Responses Rpmmon responxev tm the vixtual veality conjecttre include thct it: 1) If jusg meta-physpcs. Meta-piysical spectlation is undgstable ideas about ugknoqablw entitkds outside the observed world, likw the number of annels uh a pinhead. In eubtrast, the virtial rewlpty cjtjecture is d hyootfrsis xbout this cofld, slbeit that meta-physhcs (kutside the world) vamses physucs (the rorld). 2) Can't br proved. True, but lbjecvive rxality thgory isn't "proved" either. Science doesn't pgovc theories abfolubely it just rzjects improbable ones. In modern physics, it seems increasibgly unlikely that jhe world is ai objestive reanity. 3) Postulates the unseen. Being pergeivable is not a demahd of vcienfe or one could argue that since we can't see atoms they don't exist: 4) "Atomiwm begen life as a lhilpsophpcaj idea ehat xould fail virtuakly every contemporary test of xhat shoulg ye regarded as „scientific‟; yet, exentually, it cecame the cornerstone or physicsl science." [12] p3 5) Contradicts Occak‟s razor. Occ
itself (Figure 4a). This gives the illogicality thing itself and explain the strangeness is by most people. second option argues since all human perceptions arise from information signals, our reality could be a virtual one, which in fiction stories created by gods, aliens or machines, for study, amusement or profit (Figure 4b). is in illogical explains some inexplicable physics, but few people believe that the world is an illusion created by minds. Rather they believe that there is a world out there, that whether we see it or Brian Quantum Biosystems 2 221-249 The third option, a reality that uses a virtual reality to know itself, is this model (Figure 4c). As this asserts and expand, it logically supports and fits the modern physics. In it, the observer source of consciousness, the observed also exist as source of but the observer-observed interactions are equivalent virtual images that are only locally real. This not a virtuality created by a reality apart, but by a reality to and from the physical world is interface to allow existence interact itself, it is no information interface that we know. Appendix A. Common Responses Common to the virtual reality conjecture include that it: 1) Is Meta-physical is untestable ideas unknowable entities outside the world, the number of angels pinhead. contrast, conjecture a about this world, albeit meta-physics (outside the world) causes (the world). 2) Can't reality theory isn't "proved" either. Science doesn't prove absolutely it just rejects improbable ones. In physics, it seems increasingly unlikely that the world is an objective reality. Postulates the perceivable is not a demand of science or could argue that since can't see atoms they don't exist: 4) "Atomism began as philosophical idea would fail virtually contemporary test of should be regarded yet, eventually, became cornerstone [12] p3 5) Contradicts Occam‟s razor.
 itself (Figure 4a). This gives the IllogicaliTy of a ThiNg cReAtinG itsElf and doesn't exPLain The strangeness of modern PhysiCs, BUt it IS aCceptEd by mosT PeOPLe. THe SeConD oPTiOn argUes That sinCe all human PerCePtions arise fROm Neural infoRmaTion signals, oUr rEality CoUld BE a virTuaL one, wHich in FIction Stories is CrEAted by GOds, alieNS Or MachInes, for study, amuseMEnT Or profit (Figure 4B). This iS nOT iN FAct IllOgical and eXpLains SOme inexPLiCABLe pHYsics, but few peOple believe THat The worLd Is aN IllusiOn creAtED by Our minds. RatHer tHey believE that tHEre is a rEAl world Out theRe, tHat ExisTS wHeTheR wE See IT oR noT. briAn WhitwoRtH QUantuM BioSYSTEms 2010, 2 (1) 221-249 245 THe tHird OptioN, of a reality thAt uSes a VIrtUal reAlity To knOw ItselF, is thiS modeL (FIgure 4c). As this papEr asSerts and lAteR pApeRs ExpanD, It is loGicAllY consisTent, supPOrtS rEALIsM and fits the facts of MoDERn Physics. IN it, the OBsErVEr exists As A soUrce OF ConscIousNEsS, the obseRved alSO eXiSt as a soUrCe of reAlIsm, But The obSErveR-obserVed interActioNS are equivalent TO virtual imageS ThAT ArE Only LocAlly real. ThiS is nOT a viRtuaLItY crEAted bY a reaLiTY aPArt, but by a reality to aNd From itSelf. IF the physical wOrld is an inTERFace to alLow aN ExIStence to interaCt witH itself, theN It is like No infOrmation Interface THAt we know. appEndIx A. comMON REsponses CommoN REspoNsEs to the VirTual reaLitY coNjeCtuRe Include thAt it: 1) Is juSt MeTa-PhYsiCs. MetA-Physical SpEcuLaTioN is unTEstablE ideaS aboUt UnKNowAble entITiES OutsIdE tHe obSerVeD worlD, likE The Number oF angels on A piNHead. in CoNtrast, tHe virtual realItY conjecturE iS a hYpotheSIS about thIs world, albeit that meta-phYSics (outSidE the wOrld) Causes phySicS (the woRld). 2) cAn't be pRoved. TRue, buT oBjeCTIve reALItY thEoRy isn't "provED" EitHer. ScIeNce dOesn't prOve theories absolutELy iT just rejects iMprObabLE OnEs. IN MoDErn PhYSicS, IT seems increasinGly unlikelY tHAt The world is AN obJeCtive reAlity. 3) PoStulaTEs the unSeen. Being PerceivabLe Is noT A DemAnd of scienCe or one cOuld argue THat siNCe We can'T seE atoms ThEy dOn't exIst: 4) "AtoMIsm Began Life as A pHilosoPhicaL iDea that wOuld fail virtually every cOntempOrary TesT of what shOulD Be rEgarded as „ScieNtific‟; yet, eVenTuaLly, it BecAMe the CornERsTonE Of phySicaL Science." [12] p3 5) CONtRadICTs occam‟s razor. oCC
 itself (Figure 4a). Thisgives theillog ica lit yof a  thi ng creating it s elfand doesn't explain th e str an g enes s  o f mod ern phy s ic s ,  bu tit  is  a c ce ptedbymost pe ople. Thesec on d option arg u es  that sinc e a ll human per cep tionsar ise fromneu ral i nforma t ion si gnals, ou rr eality could b e avirt ual one, which in fi c tion stories i s crea te d  b y god s,aliens orma chine s , for s t ud y , amu s ement or prof it (Figure4 b).  Thisis  no t  in fa ct il lo g ica l and expla inssome inex plicab l e physi c s, butfew pe opl e b elie v eth atth e  wo r ld  is anillusion  c re atedby o u r m inds . R athe r the y believe tha t t here isa rea l wor ld o ut  ther e, tha t exi st s whether we se e it  or not.Bri an  Wh it worth Quantu m B ios ystems2010, 2 (1)  2 2 1 - 24 9 245 The third op ti o n ,of a rea lity t h at  u s es a vir tu alreal i t y toknow it self, is  thism od el  (Figur e4c). A sthi s p apera sser ts and  later p apers expand, it isl ogically cons i st e n t, supp ort s realism a nd f i ts t he f a ct s o f  mode rn ph ys i cs .  In it, the observe rexists  as a  source of co nsciousnes s , the obse rved al s o exist as a s ource  of realis m , but th e obs erver-ob served in t e ractions  ar e e qui val e n tto virtual im a g es t ha t are o nly  locall y r eal . T his  i s not a v irtualit ycr ea te d b y a r e ality ap ar t,bu t b y a r e alityto an d fr om  i t sel f. If t h ep h ysic al  w orld  is  a n int erfa c e t o allow  an exist enc e  toin te ract wi th itself, th en  it is lik enoinform a t ion inte rface that we know. App e ndix A.  Co mmonResp onses Com mon  respo nse s  to th e virt ual r ea lit y conje c t ur e i nc lude thati t : 1 ) Isju st m eta-phy sics. Meta-physica l  sp eculation isunt esta b l eide a sa bou tu nkn o w able entities o utside the  o b se rved world ,  li ke  the nu mber of  ange l s on apinhead.In contra st , th e vir tual reali ty conje cture isa  hypo t he sis a bou t this  w orl d, al beit t h atmeta- physic s(outsi de th eworld) c auses physics (the worl d). 2)  Can' t b e proved.  Tr u e,but objec tive  reality t heo ryisn't  "p r oved"  eit h er . S c ience  doe s n't prove th eor i e sabsolutelyi t jus t rej ect s  impro babl e ones. In modern physics, it se emsi n cre asi n glyun likely that th e w or l d  is an o bj ective real ity. 3)Po s tulat es the  unsee n. Bein g pe r ceivab le i s n ot a dema ndof science  o ro ne cou ld a rg ue tha t sinc e  wec a n't see atoms th ey do n ' t exi s t:4) "A to mism be g an l ife as a p hilosophica l idea  tha t wou ld fail  v irtual lyev ery contem p orary tes t ofwhat sh ou ld b e r egarde d as „ scien tifi c‟ ; y et, event u a ll y ,it bec amethe c or ners tone of p h ysical s cie n ce." [1 2]  p3 5 ) Cont r ad i c ts Occam‟s  ra zor.O c c
 itself_(Figure 4a)._This gives the illogicality_of a_thing_creating itself_and_doesn't explain the_strangeness of modern_physics, but it is_accepted by most_people._The second option argues that since all human perceptions arise from neural information signals,_our_reality could_be_a_virtual one, which in fiction_stories is created by gods,_aliens or_machines, for study, amusement or profit (Figure 4b)._This_is not in_fact illogical and explains some inexplicable physics, but few_people believe that the world is_an illusion created_by_our_minds. Rather they believe_that there is a real world_out there, that exists whether we_see it or not. Brian Whitworth Quantum_Biosystems 2010, 2 (1) 221-249 245_The third option, of a_reality that_uses a virtual reality to_know itself, is_this model_(Figure 4c). As_this paper asserts and later papers_expand, it is_logically consistent, supports realism and fits_the_facts of modern_physics._In_it, the_observer exists as_a_source of_consciousness,_the observed also exist as a_source_of realism, but the observer-observed interactions are_equivalent to virtual images_that_are only locally real._This is not a virtuality_created by a reality apart, but_by a_reality to_and from itself. If the physical world is an interface to_allow an existence to interact with_itself, then it is_like no_information_interface that we_know._Appendix A._Common Responses Common responses to the virtual_reality conjecture_include that it: 1) Is just_meta-physics. Meta-physical speculation is_untestable_ideas about unknowable entities outside the_observed world, like the number of_angels on a pinhead. In_contrast,_the_virtual reality conjecture is a_hypothesis about this world, albeit that_meta-physics (outside the_world) causes physics (the world). 2) Can't_be_proved. True, but objective reality theory_isn't_"proved" either. Science doesn't prove theories_absolutely_it_just rejects improbable ones. In_modern physics, it seems increasingly unlikely_that the world is an objective reality. 3) Postulates_the unseen. Being_perceivable is not a demand_of_science_or one could argue that since we can't see atoms_they don't_exist: 4) "Atomism_began life as a philosophical idea that would fail virtually_every contemporary test of what should be_regarded as „scientific‟; yet, eventually, it became the cornerstone of physical_science." [12] p3 5) Contradicts Occam‟s razor. Occ