Dear Lorraine,
So glad to see that you're still playing this game. I do agree with you that current physics is wrong about the nature of fundamental reality, although I had not before reading your essay seen this is a major contributor to attitudes that are destroying our planet. From previous essays and exchanges, we share a view of information as inherently connected with experience/consciousness. I would not quite say that "this information is indistinguishable from physical reality itself", but I believe I understand your point. I view physics as a manifestation of the gravitational field, and so, a seamless universe, but for all practical purposes the experience of this universe is, as you say, one of separate interacting, interrelated parts, such that information has a subjective topology.
In a similar vein, I reject the deterministic "set-&forget" view and see the continuing creativity of nature, but again, I view this as the unfolding of the principle of self-interaction, and not as new rules emerging. This is more a semantic point than a matter of disagreement.
As you note, the world of Darwinian physics has a certain zombie-like character, based on the unproved and erroneous assumption that consciousness, the experience of reality, is an essentially artificial mechanical construct, emerging when the right parts are placed in proper order.
There is hope. Five years ago my first essay was on "The Physics of Consciousness", and last year Max Tegmark, he who runs the FQXi show, published a paper on consciousness as a physical property. Although his approach is hopelessly incorrect, it's still a hopeful sign that at least establishment physicists can admit that consciousness is relevant for physics. Thus, while you observe that "the perverse physics mindset is pretty rusted on", there may be hope.
You mentioned "prominent physicist Brian Greene" and his smug dismissal of free will, due to his belief in determinism. Prominence and public relations are not unrelated, and have little to do with insight or physical reality. There are number of physics experiments that are producing data that will upset a lot of apple carts.
Simply think of the multiverse as a beloved exercise for the chattering class, who, on the basis of the slimmest logic and no supporting data at all, like to spin yarns to amaze their less-imaginative friends. I do agree that the end has a certain toxicity, as it confuses the hell out of Joe Public when these "certified" expert spin their yarns. But you notice, Yogi Berra-like, they avoid predicting things, especially the future.
You are correct about free will, and right to dismiss as zombie-like all who deny its existence. I think that the scientific establishment has gone overboard in so many ways that it is near a tipping point, and those who have pushed the concepts much farther than the evidence supports probably will not be happy when the tip occurs.
"Call Dr. Redwine! They done it to themselves." (**)
Thanks again for participating in this contest and the exchanges. I always look forward to your ideas. You present them so well. I hope you find my essay interesting.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
(**) Ferrol Sams, "Run With the Horsemen", Penguin, 1982