Here is the link: http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT4.pdf
Brian asks us to only share the link since he will be making changes before publication.
This paper is a terriffic addition to the last 3 chapters.
I finally see how Brian's theory and mine fit seamlessly together. His theory derives what I call “our PMR rule-set” and at least the front end of Ted's VR Rendering Engine (VRRE)... and as such is a stand alone explanation for PMR physics. It answers the question: how did our virtual approximately objective physical universe evolve to be the way it is.
In contrast, MBT theory (model) takes a step backward in time to answer the what, why, who, and how that describes existence and intent before the “tear” (BT) that initiated the evolution of our digital virtual universe, and to supply the “why” of why our physical universe was initiated).
MBT, like Brian's theory, is also falsifiable and predictive where it interfaces with physical reality at the macro level. However, when MBT describes BT causality, the logical consequences become qualitative descriptions of individual subjective experience (which makes up the lion’s share of our most meaningful experience and, arguably, the most significant part). As such, it can satisfy the statistical requirements of useful inductive logic in order to develop a consistent causality, rather than using the the deductive forms that are applicable to assessing approximately objective experience. Like approximately objective experience, Subject experience can also be repeatable and essentially the same (though not exactly the same) for many (theoretically all) observers. Within human subjective experience, there is a reasonably diverse and large set of credible subjective data points that can be tightly fitted by a simple, consistent causality described by MBT. These subjective credible data points are now generally described by a hodgepodge of conflicting belief that is even less rational than the standard model of particles discussed by Brian in this paper.