"Actually we all operate on some degree of faith."

Er.... No.
Faith is a pernicious lie and the excuse people with no evidence use instead.

@LenHazell53

If your world view is that reality consists of physical objects moving in space and time, then your belief rests on faith, and is no better or more certain than religious faith.

There is some evidence for such a world view, but that evidence is by no means iron-clad, leading to absolute certainty.

When I left for home this afternoon I had faith that my house was still there. There was a preponderance of evidence, but nothing is certain.

@WilliamFleming You have an odd and non typical definition of faith, if we cannot agree a simple definition of faith in a secular sense and faith when used in the theological sense we will simply go around in circles achieving nothing.

If your world view is that reality consists of physical objects moving in space and time, then your belief rests on ...

NOT faith, evidence, established fact and mathematical models.

When I left for home this afternoon I had faith that my house was still there.

No you didn't you had a wealth of experience and aposteriori facts to present a reasonable expectation, that is NOT faith.

@LenHazell53

““Many, many separate arguments, all very strong individually, suggest that the very notion of spacetime is not a fundamental one. Spacetime is doomed. There is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally in the actual underlying description of the laws of physics. That’s very startling, because what physics is supposed to be about is describing things as they happen in space and time. So, if there’s no spacetime, it’s not clear what physics is about.”—NIMA ARKANI-HAMED, CORNELL MESSENGER LECTURE 2016”

— The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes by Donald Hoffman
[a.co]

[cornell.edu]

@WilliamFleming And that disputes anything I have contended how?

@LenHazell53 Your words from above:

“‘If your world view is that reality consists of physical objects moving in space and time, then your belief rests on ...’

NOT faith, evidence, established fact and mathematical models.”

@WilliamFleming Yes, how does that relate to a book by a behavioural psychologist quoting a quantum physicist out of context to try and prove that microcosmic physics which are being referred to are exactly the same as macrocosmic physics, which they are not in order to prove the spurious argument that just because you can hear, see, touch, smell, taste and touch real things in no way proves they are real.
Come on Bill you know it is bollocks, why are you pretending it is not?

EDIT For give the multiple corrections my dyslexia is playing me up today

@LenHazell53 As I see it, either our sense impressions are real or they are not. Whether micro or macro, the idea that reality consists of objects moving in space and time is doomed. That model is a good one for everyday survival purposes, but contemplation reveals that our sense impressions are no more than symbolic icons. Those icons stand for something, but whatever it is is far removed from our purview.

Donald Hoffman explains it much better than I can. He is a highly regarded cognitive scientist. That last link is all about the physics of why spacetime is doomed. I haven’t actually watched it but I’m going to right now if it isn’t too far over my head.