long's Site, ...people can enter

If the Pan European Game Information (PEGI) or European video game content rating system which is established to help European consumers make informed decisions on buying computer games with logos on games boxes would be applied on religious games.  How would they rate…?

Imagine a code of conduct, a set of rules to which every publisher (religious or others) using the PEGI system is contractually committed.  That would be the day not?

PEGI self-regulation is composed by five age categories and eight content descriptors that advise the suitability and content of a virtual game for a certain age range based on the games content.
The age rating does not indicate the difficulty of the game or the skill required to play it.
But it would indicate that it is a game.

Why not use such a rating for religion?
PEGI continuously rates games. And as religion is part of Culture, Media and even sport why not use the sole classification system for video games and software on them as well.  

How would religions rate anyway?
Would it be suitable for all ages?
As rules embedded in stories containing only some mild violence in an appropriate context for younger children, but no bad language is allowed.  The violence in this life-game can be moderate sure , the context … well that’s debatable as well. My conclusion… I don’t think so… No kids allowed.
Would it be suitable for ages 7 and older?  As in that the life-game may contain mild, cartoon-style violence and elements that can be frightening to younger children. Again I don’t think so…

Would it be suitable for ages 12 and older? A life that contains violence in a fantasy setting, bad language, sexual innuendo or gambling (but never for real money). Almost but no I don’t think so…

Would it then be suitable for ages 16 and older? Now we are talking, most if not all rulebooks show explicit violence, strong sex references (against or for certain preferences), bad language (calling non believers dogs, filth, spit on them, etc), gambling or drug use (choice encouragement based on only circumstantial evidence).  That’s more like it…but not quite.

Would it be suitable for ages 18 and older? At least I know that most religious game rule books contain graphic violence, and the game if played out itself also contains graphic violence, including "violence towards defenceless people" (whipping out cities, putting them in the largest prisons around) and "multiple, motiveless killing", strong sexual content, bad language, gambling, drug use (glamorization) and discrimination.  That’s it… we got it… if you want to join a religion you should be 18j or older.  Funny even Jesus called his disciples to him when they were older, not?

But what about the eight content descriptors used to rate games:
Here we have it again. If you play the religious game you’ll meet violence in all sorts, Well this life game does contain scenes of people getting injured or dying, often by use of weapons, nails and crucifixes. Also may contain gore and blood-letting, bombings, full out war.
It contains profanity, sexual innuendo, threats, and all manner of slurs and epithets. (from paedophiles, incest, use of young boys etc)
It feeds on fear , and this life game if played contains scenes that are considered too disturbing or frightening to younger or more emotionally vulnerable players when playing an ordinary online game.
So why do we feed it at our kids from birth on?
Why is there no logo on every religious book to help us make informed decisions on joining  or not joining such life infringing game?
Have fun
Longfun

Just as Steven Hawking I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. Auw maybe I deserve a punch but wait ...
Is my/your brain a computer?

Who is still afraid of the idea that the brain functions as a mechanistic entity complete with "circuit.s" and “wires” (neural networks)?

Don’t worry what follows it’s just a theory within a larger theory.
The brain being a computer is just a theory about how the mind works.
It makes the brain a simple piece of machinery that can be programmed and repaired
Still…why is there no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers. (I love Hawking)


Where does the AI or just I go…if my brain breaks down...
If one labours under this assumption, if one tries to pin down and catalogue brain knowledge in declarative form in order to build a brain.  We had some successes.
Computers are already geniuses when it comes to playing games in tv shows, like chess, drive cars, fly drones, and control our defences.
Still our present AI fails to solve the problem of common sense and procedural knowledge, two fundamental components of human consciousness. (we think)
So did we over simplify our thinking about our thinking?
We look for modularity in the brain...as if it is a car and why not... a modrn car as several memories from motor-management to the GPS.
No wonder that we run into the idea that our brain must require a memory.
Maybe it isn’t that simple.
Not one region of the brain can be associated with a singular function, and the brain is no storage dump either.
Even its internal links and synapses are also far more complex than any electrical circuit we have build up to now. (ghemical and stuff...Neither processing speed nor short term memory capacity are fixed, whereas RAM is. But will it always be so…

If it isn't always so we will find consciousness not to be a place.

How close are we, really, to understanding - let alone being able to replicate - the functioning of a human brain? This question pushes us to separate what we really know from hype, and try to quantify it “in a way that can be instantiated in an artefact.”
Look around, we are witnessing an explosion in our understanding of the brain and its intricacies.
We can already figure out creatures with only around five or six hundred neurons.  Sure it's a long way from the 13 billion neurons with trillions of possible interactions. 
But who says we will never make it?

Our cognitive perceptual functions are part of a parallel and distributed processing system
each component is interconnected, but not necessarily distinct.
If consciousness is a holistic phenomenon, occurring simultaneously in the entire brain and why not brains.. imagine what we will find.

Example I found on the net: when a split-brain patient wakes up from surgery, he or she is only able to verbally explain everything in the right visual field, because the left visual field information goes to the silent hemisphere. But when asked how they are doing, patients say, "Fine.
Everything seems normal to them.
It’s as if the consciousness about that part of the sensory world is tied to the hemisphere that is no longer in touch with the one that’s talking.
All the enabling devices that allow for phenomenal conscious experience are closely tied to the areas of the brain or the networks of the brain that are responsible for whatever function it is we’re talking about or conscious about at a particular time or direction of time .

So that’s a different sort of picture and thoughts and the one that sometimes is held that there is a special place where everything — we become — all this processing goes on and then it goes into the consciousness box and then we're aware of it. (not mine)
So can conciousness ever be understood?

Why not? In 1954, researchers had only a basic understanding of DNA, but now 2012, the way the gene was conceptualized had evolved along with biotechnological discovery: we understand that it receives feedback and is involved with many different systems throughout the body.
When it comes to consciousness, cognitive scientists are maybe nibbling at the corners as usual,until a bigger piece comes off but if a larger piece comes off a breakthrough appears and our world changes again....and again....and again...until we get bored
Have fun
Longfun
As always cross reference don’t take this for granted.

For those who always point at the brain as a storage bin of memories.
and those who expected this process never to be understood.
It is as if science always finds a way to make our fantasy part of the area I call collective reality.
So I'm no longer really surprised about what;s found.
Ex.
We know strengthened synaptic connections between neurons have something to do with memory.
We know the synaptic membranes involved are constantly degrading and being replaced –so it is logical to wonder about how it can be that some memories can last for a person’s lifetime.

Imagine (this is real) that our scientists know how to erase memories from brains (animal at first  we speak 2010 http://kotaku.com/5678777/scientists-discover-a-way-to-erase-bad-memories by use of sound) which lead to manipulation of some specific protein (calcium-calmodulin dependent kinase complex II, or CaMKII) which plays a large role in the encoding and erasing of memories by strengthening or eliminating neural connections.
Background:
The geometry (ewminds me of sacred geometry) of the CaMKII molecule is very similar to that of tubulin protein compounds.
These tubulins are contained within microtubule protein structures, which in turn occupy the interiors of the brain’s neurons.
They are particularly concentrated in the neurons’ axons and dendrites, which are active in the memory process.

As technology evolves ever faster our scientists easily found the tools ( 3d computational study)  to understand the interaction between CaMKII, tubulin and microtubules.
And  based on 3D atomic-resolution structural data for all three protein molecules, the highly-accurate computer models followed.
What has been observed is that the spatial dimensions and geometry of the CaMKII and microtubule molecules allow them to fit together. The microtubules and CaMKII molecules are capable of electro statically attract one another, as result a binding process can occur between them.
This process takes place within the neurons, after they have been synaptically connected, to (in some cases) permanently store memories.
Imagine the new possibilities of dealing with memory increase or the other loss problems.
Interfacing our brains with hybrid devices to augment and 'refresh' our memories, is no longer outside our reach.
Not to speak of new therapeutic and preventive ways of dealing with neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CaMKII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubulin

have fun
Longfun

Look for obvious changes.
Look to see if there are any changes to your own government, the favourite political directions or in the way your own country or nation acts in general. If your governments leaders have moved around or if anything has been added to your original government without general consent, this is a sign you have a political virus.
Look in the "institutions generating laws and order in your national Control Panel and see if there are any programs/laws/ rules that you don't remember installing.
Often a virus will install other programs/laws/ rules that will cause problems. (empowered lobbies, co-operations, external politics) If you have a new pointer in your local media, this is another sign that you may have a virus.

Disconnect from the rest of the world.
If your nation/country acts differently when you are connected to the rest of the world, that is another sign you have a virus. One of the chief purposes of many viruses is to steal your nation’s resources (material and other). When you're not connected to the world, someone on the other end isn't able to get to your resources.

Check your country's development speed.
One of the key ways to know if you have a political or other virus is if your nation as a whole is running slower. Sometimes the country will run just a little bit slower, but after having a virus for some time your country will become extremely slow in everything it does and develops. Disconnecting from the rest of the world may speed your country up, but with malicious viruses it may not matter whether or not you are connected to the rest of the world--the virus will use your resources just to cause you problems. (as Israel's cyber attack on Iran)

Beware of errors in execution.
If you are getting strange errors or just more errors in production or execution that do things like close your own legal programs as healthcare or energy or cause you to revolt and restart your country, there's a good chance you have a virus.
Sometimes errors from self created rules and laws are normal, but they shouldn't happen constantly. Your legal system should keep a log of when the country get errors, what it was doing when it happened and how bad the error was.

Listen for noise within your own country and media and within the world you’re connected with. If your country is making a lot of crunching noises accessing your constitution your basic structures when you aren't doing anything, then it's likely being controlled by a virus or someone who set up the virus. Most of the time when you're not using the full potential of your own country it shouldn't be doing anything. (for ex. Europe's behaviour shows it has a virus trying to control its institutions)

Inspect your security politics. Check to see if your democracy-updates have been changed or disabled and no longer fulfil your constitution. (as the constant updating of Europe;s constitution) If you have such security but it's not up-to-date or not quite good enough, a virus will disable the legal system to give it and other viruses more access.

ps this is a work in process.

Have fun
Longfun

I'm past the point of wondering what infinity is. Infinity is subjective, Each of use of us make it what we want it to.   ()
If you as part of my subjectivity wonder what objective infinity should be. We first would try to agree on what to ignore and what not. Then we could align around some basic agreements (maths and things) we could even test it all....but within ignorance.
Anyway, would it be important?
Objectively... no, or yes it becomes practical belief.

Subjectively ( my dominating belief) .
In any direction I see feel or hear I meet infinity. Myself.
The observation itself (any) is my personal belief and is infinite.

If I die I will only notice it as a temporal (but a result of my infinite) experience. After that anything can happen.(between time(s))
It would happen in relation to what I seemly left behind (an observation of self (my, your self).
It's funny but this life enables me to observe myself in infinite (as in in-numerous) different belief-experiences at once separate and together.
All in perspectives unique to my belief.
At best I feel sorry that my present "being me experience" generates so much discontent and suffering within my belief. (my mental is containing my physical... or not?)
Mostly because I can't let go of little things, which also are me.

All I can do is live with my self and find a behaviour in my thinking that keeps this going (as in preferred?), if not I will probably end this personal world all together by experiencing " to die" which again seems to be the perfect (reset) button.
Will I know..Is it important? Will this knowledge give a"peace"? After time of course I will meet this state of being but only after time as this button is perfect.(a switch in direction of time (if it exists in the first place).
No wonder that from this perspective I can't hate believers I meet within my personal belief, I can't hate people committing suicide, or even murder or war etc.
I can get really angry at them, but as in the end it happens within my belief. I know I've the power, I can always reset it, or alter it in an infinite amount of ways.
So why don't I? Maybe I already did, but ignored it, Or maybe I never tried and ignored that too, or maybe both at once, and or non at all. (I never think about it... or do I?)

I do try to change my personal belief behaviour in such a way that my close environment suffers less. Use what my environment gives me. (working or the idea of working can be seen as a long written formula to get a specific outcome, as money and food...where should one draw the line of ignorance?)
Each time I'm, or one of you is able I'm sure it ripples trough my belief as a ripple in a pond. Just as ideas and inventions trough this world of mine.

Some rocks within my pond of belief just need a lot of ripples to dissolve, in that case part of all belief can freeze over and scratch it gletcher wise away. Or rock on rock wise.
I just have to keep my mind on you all. LOL
Anyway infinity as a defined belief is not important, as it's definition will limit your ability to use it.
Try it, just be honest your yourself (all of yourself), but know that some of yourself will not be able to keep this up. Use this quality within you, give it space without control. The only left control is your personal belief, your personal behaviour.your last stand?
It's seems I'm not the first to think this way.. but know this treats the whole world you live in. (My world...aliens included )
Have fun
within my belief, as I'm part of yours as well,  I'll try to do the same thing.
It seems I really  needed to put this on paper
Thx for the idea Hector.
Sorry for any pain...
Longfun

I stumbled on http://astron.multiply.com/journal/item/1805 and it is great.

We now know for sure that our solar system is different from the space just outside it.
On my birthday researchers announced their finding at a press conference on Jan. 31, 2012. It’s based on data from NASA’s IBEX spacecraft, which is able to sample material flowing into the solar system from interstellar space. See:
It detected alien matter that came into our solar system from other parts of the galaxy--and, chemically speaking, it’s not exactly like what we find here at home
Some basics:
Our solar system is surrounded by a heliosphere a vast magnetic bubble  which the sun blows  from within by use of solar wind.
 The sun inflates its  own magnetic field, which in turn  separates us, our  sun and all the planets circling it, from the rest of the Milky Way.
Outside the heliosphere lies interstellar space. It’s as if this heliosphere works like our ozone layer, it helps protect us from cosmic rays that would otherwise penetrate the solar system just as our ozone protects us against ultra violet radiation which is potentially damaging to the life forms on Earth.
So how did they do it:
In 2008the IBEX spacecraft was launched in Earth orbit and does nothing but spin and scan the entire sky. It’s especially good in detecting neutral atoms that slip through the heliosphere’s magnetic defences. (as our ozone layer it seems to contain holes as well)
In short, It’s able to sample the galaxy outside without leaving it.
Interesting conclusions:
This thing now measured four separate types of atoms from interstellar space (the composition doesn't match up with what we see in the solar system)
 the four types of atoms detected are H, He, O and Ne.
Neon for example is a noble gas which means that it doesn’t react with anything, serves as a reference as it’s relatively abundant, in such it can be measured with good statistics
So thanks to this IBEX, we are now able to compare the neon-to-oxygen ratio inside vs. outside the heliosphere.
It is measured and reported that
 (Outside) for every 20 neon atoms in the galactic wind, there are 74 oxygen atoms.
(Inside) for every 20 neon atoms there are 111 oxygen atoms.

If one does the maths this means that there is more oxygen in any given slice of the solar system than in local interstellar space.

The logical question : Where did the extra oxygen come from?
Now we have to fall back on possible theories as either the solar system evolved in a separate, more oxygen-rich part of the galaxy than where we currently reside.
Or a great deal of critical, life-giving oxygen lies trapped in interstellar dust grains or ices, unable to move freely throughout space—and thus undetectable by IBEX.
Or ... and so on. there is always more.
But it is the potential model of bubbles that interests me most…particles can be seen as bubbles as well. Note that economics creates bubbles as well. It is as if life is a bubble bath. (My bubble bath).
Anyway alien atoms are around … At least the bubble isn’t isolated, rather closed.  This again will be proven when NASA’s Voyager spacecraft starts travelling outside this heliosphere. We all expect Voyager 1 to exit the solar system within the next few years. (Says NASA)

Some call it a new frontier. In mind I’m already way past this frontier.(must be looking to many star trek episodes)
 In the following I'm just pulling your leg.
Imagine that voyager bounces back inward when hitting the sphere, it would mean we are no better off  then entities within a snow globe.
Or that it penetrates the sphere as a needle from within blowing it all apart....
don't worry it won't happen it's already full of holes we are already affected by the cosmos outside this sphere (ask the Chinese (horoscope),as they watch and study stars and their effects on us way longer than many on this planet)
Sorry I had to rewrite what's mentioned in the link as really wanted to understand it better.
on the other hand its the best gift I could get on my birthday (even if I don't celebrate it in any way)
What this observation really does is add diversity in a lot of new scientific senses and I like it. As that again encourages creativity and innovation just by fusing together multiple ideas (bubbles) that are apparently separate.

Have fun
Longfun

Seeing is a continuously evolving belief.
How would you know?
How many of us do, and do this with great certainty, belief that vision springs directly from our eyes?

Sure my eyes, ears, and skin bombard me with a constant never ending stream of information and non information. But think about it, this sensory input is only a step in a complex process, a process that eventually arrives at an understanding (belief) of my world.

It's my brain, or is it the spin of even lesser complex materials, that determines which details I pay attention to and why? What makes my picture of the world a very coherent and unified belief? Why can we prove that what we see emerges from the activity spread out over more than thirty different visual areas in our cortex, each of which mediates multiple subtle functions?
Think about it.
I can question how my neurons encode meaning and evoke all the semantic associations of my world. No one else does this for me. It’s my memory, my perception, my art, even my consciousness. And within all this I’m able to study reflections of myself and even see them (me’s) as cognitive (ab)normalities
Why?
Why I’m I interested in the apparent others?
Why do I want to improve their life?
 Is it because solving all the other cognitive quirks and (apparent, not necessary) disorders provides me an insight into myself?
Are the others which I belief I see, brain damaged versions of myself? (no offence intended, maybe I'm the brain damaged one, and I've no problem with that)

Each different brain I meet seems to be highly specialized.
But if I hit another brain (human or other), I’m not experiencing a general reduction in "brain power" around me.  Instead, depending on how I hit it (my own and any other brain)  I will be able to link the appearing lesion (death, disability of any kind) to a general area of a specific brain or group of brains to the loss of a specific function associated with that area of the brain or if in group area within a society of brains. (look how a society behaves if one special is is removed in a drastic way)

Imagine a society of brains tormented by an internal horror ()i. Even after fast intervention from the outside, and even if outsiders removed the horror, one would expect the society to behave normal again….But it doesn’t .... why? As if not removed perfectly clots of thinking (revenge of any kind) may appear, such feelings travel to the main society-controls and cause a society-stroke.
Not long later, even when in connection with its friendly surrounding, the drastically changed society finds itself unable to recognize the old friendly faces, even though they knew them by the sound of their voice.

Solving clots , preventing clots would be nice but in the mean time, know that there is nothing wrong with such society’s vision or hearing. 
For a period they simply miss the old process of object recognition. 
They see all kinds of things and study objects an interests in painstaking detail, but at the same time they are unable to say decisively what the researches really are.
When researching Nuclear power, for instance, they note that it is "exiting, with a lot of energy and power at the end," and wonder if it might be a tool to grow and be with. (logical really)
In that case, the wire between the political vision and regulating emotion, has been cut.
This society’s vision is still normal, their emotion is normal, "but the two [have been] uncoupled or re coupled in a way the outsider can’t and will not understand…and we have a regional crisis.
The question emerging is…who’s sick? As such face blindness affects the whole global population.  Many societies seem to have this disconnect between sight and emotion from time to time.
The summed brain of a society perceives the identity of another society in a more fluid, interconnected way than some want to belief LOL.

At each stage in processing between societies, whenever one of both or multiple societies achieves a partial solution to a perceptual 'problem'--determining the entire object's identity, location, or movement--this partial solution is immediately fed back to earlier stages.(history)
It's as if each society is hallucinating all the time and what they call perception (politics) involves merely selecting the one hallucination that best matches the current input.


Just a question: Imagine a society which actually experiences clinical, non-drug induced visual hallucinations…would you trust it?

Societal hallucinations are often entirely benign and more common than you'd think. And far from being freakish or a sign of insanity…this you can question.
Societal hallucinations start off as geometric patterns and colours, landscapes and sometimes enormous crystals or fields of flowers (in other words architecture, art and culture, even money).
For some people within such society, the hallucinations are accompanied by physical and mental pain (compare it to migraines).
Some societies see them when listening to religion or thinking of science.  When they reach a condition in which political sense is simultaneously perceived as if by one or more additional senses such as sight writings, art, societal behaviour in favour of war-flags colours even cars and food, and why not even exploration of space.
conclusion
I live in a world full of competing joined perceptions.
I can solve this world in the same way I solve my own joined perceptions.(I will need to change ^_^)
Have fun
Longfun

I'm no music fan but this song struck me. It stated the obvious.
 
And tried to show me that If I try to be an icon,
then this icon becomes me.(i would be lived by it...)
If I try to be a model,it' may as well catwalk over me.(obviously visible in my world)
If I try to hard to walk in straight shoes, then these shoes would bend me too.
If I try to be a kid again,that kid may as well kidnap me.

I know it's true. The guy I know, well that's just me.
And there is nothing I can do. Just like a door I can't get through.
When there is no one left to fool, I will not go and drown in that old pool.
I can't kid myself.
the above is not mine  LOL

So I don't try to be an icon, I con the I inside of me.
That picture I may be painting doesn't look a thing like me.
I'll agree that it's a nice try,but when my paint is dry,
I;m just as the rest , a little icon, another guy
have fun
Longfun
super me and super I.
but the original is way better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZp2HF8b9jg

If you try to be an icon,
then the icon becomes you.
If you try to be a model,
it'll catwalk over you.
If you try to walk in straight shoes,
then these shoes will bend you too.
If you try to be a kid again,
the kid will kidnap you.

You know it's true.
The guy you know, well that's just you.
And there is nothing you can do.
Just like a door you can't get through.
When there is no one left to fool,
don't go and drown in that old pool.
Don't kid yourself.

So don't try to be an icon,
con the I inside of you.
That picture you've been painting doesn't look a thing like you.
I'll agree that it's a nice try,
but when your paint is dry,
we're all just little icons
super you and super I.

You know it's true.
The guy you know, well that's just you.
And there is nothing you can do.
Just like a door you can't get through.
When there is no one left to fool,
don't go and drown in that old pool.
Don't kid yourself.

Solo.

I need someone to show me,
just what I threw away.
I need a pretty angel to present it on a tray.
You never liked the icon,
said "that guy looked pretty strange".
But you never tried to change me and that's how I've come to change.

You know it's true.
The guy you know, well that's just you.
And there is nothing you can do.
Just like a door you can't get through.
When there is no one left to fool,
don't go and drown in that old pool.
Don't kid yourself.

When there is no one left to fool,
don't go and drown in that old pool.
Don't kid yourself.
http://lyrics.wikia.com/Daan:Icon

When I as a conscious being sense things, see something, I know that the image I’m perceiving looks nothing like it does in reality.

some science says things are colourless and formless until my brain/mind interprets the stimuli into a specific image.
So apart from subjective perceptions, which can vary widely among conscious organisms. (I place them later),
What does the universe look like? I don’t know… I can imagine it though, I do it all the time.
I wake up and open my eyes and there it is more or less just as I left it.

As a conscious being I observe subjectively. (it’s my observation, not yours)
Still I can within my subjectivity observe groups of conscious beings. Each of them also seem to be able to observe subjectively.
Those groups (nevertheless within my subjectivity) can agree within again another set (let’s call it calibration) their subjectivity, their used tools etc. and they can come to a commonly “objective” universe.
It is all a matter of probability.(sic) as it all happens within my subjectivity.

How the universe (en bref) really looks like is how I would see it without interference of any calibration no matter if it is my brain or any other interference. Quite un-practical…

So how my own universe looks like for now is purely subjective, and if not calibrated with others, it is in that sense also my own objective point of view.
So how would a generally understood objective universe looks like...how does a blank spot look like?

Well first I need to add that it stays at all circumstances part of my personal subjectivity, and at best it may increase in objectivity together with my calibration/understanding in relation to others (The others being other view points, being each of you, which I observe subjectively as well).

In that sense it becomes more practical in relation to my (objective) subjectivity.
Still as I never left the un-interfered, un-calibrated universe (myself), the others can think whatever they like it doesn't change a thing to the un-calibrated universe.

Suddenly we are all stuck in a commonly Subjective universe. Sure it depends on how I look at it, but a commonly subjective universe seems to equal some form of obbjective universe as well.

It seems, as I started to think about it a little late,that I premised from birth on a lot of things already (mainly for practical and entertainment reasons) just to be able to calibrate and communicate within myself.
And any reaction (and even my / all our history) shows them premises clearly to me.

For me, each agreed-upon premise is already a form of inner calibration, a premiss, a form of relative objectivity (relative to a single observer (being subjective) or a known/agreed-upon group within my observation).
To communicate with each-other within the groups I also try to find out where my perception with my 5 senses ends and how each of the others (including me) interpret the feedback of those 5 senses (language is a perfect example).
Again here the calibration generates a relative objectivity.

Sure, It doesn't prevent others (having for ex. other senses and interpretations) to be able or not be able to join in at any time. It simply seems to add redundant pathways and they enlarge the understanding of an objectivity from within.

Outside this objectivity the redundant paths may simply fail and become part of a different objectivity or subjectivity.
Some see ghosts, and tell us they are real (), others don't and can ignore the observation completely, until it becomes relative-objective again within a larger broken symmetry as that's all it is.

To communicate with myself I need a language, a tool for expressing my thoughts.
At fist it was truly subjective /personal as well and only later it became a common tool used to describe things with (and share them with others…again within my subjectivity), so my language also needs a form of calibration if I try to use loops, how else will I understand myself or the other in my subjectivity.
I need a minimal magnitude or correctness to make my language useful.
Learning (any) is in that sense also a calibration process.
What I’m doing with you (any reader) right now is fine-tuning / calibration as well.
True, there is a continuous going back and forth of information between the one observer with the known or assigned correctness and the second observer also with known or assigned correctness in relation to a unit under test (in this case my universe, me, or any of several other things I constantly calibrate on).
But the result is an agreement relative to both (objectivity), and relative to them/me (subjectivity).
The truth-value emerging from this process is relative and relates to what I call the objective standard, it can be anything or anyone.(and it can be totally wrong)

Once we have an objective universe we all can add as many parallel redundant paths as we like increasing our probability within by continuously finding more agreements, and again proving our truth.(the paths behave as magnetic fields within their mean time of failure and suddenly culture blossoms).
It doesn't mean there is nothing outside this objective-equation; we simply did not calibrate it yet, did not drag it in yet.

What came first I, my thought or my materialized environment?
In my reality I need a "time" to answer that.
Based on probability (not necessary true) they came all at once (within a certain time) as outside that specific time each separate would fail to generate my observation, my understanding and my environment.(outside my certain time I wouldn't be in it, or in other words I would not be part of another one's universe, if this were possible)
By speaking and materializing I'm calibrating myself in a kind of closed-loop transfer function on its turn describing the net result of the effects of a feedback (again not necessary) loop on an input signal to the circuits (whatever) enclosed by the loop.
As I have no idea what the input signal is, how big it is, or in how far the circuits of my present being are enclosed, it may as well be an open ending loop and end at any time.
Anyway I would not notice it, as language is just as my environment, my reality, my imagination, my understanding, a representational system.(you put a point behind the sentence and the writing of language is over... now the reading can begin.

If it ends my present observation ends, I could say that my universe / my reality is but signs, is but language (biggest common divisor), and on itself my universe is readable from my perspective within my mind.  
It only becomes a little more complex if I would translate my universe (subjective) into words (objectively agreed upon definitions) and present it on a different canvas (paper or screen) to others within my subjectivity.
So I keep on wondering where my mind and reality ends:
It is as if my mind's ability to read and write and tell is my mind's mean time between failure.  As I said before my reality seems to keep adding parallel redundant paths, just to prove I'm here( and I observe it as (subjective-objectified) time and motion).
In Wittgenstein's terms
My subjective picture is but a model (nevertheless also a translation)of my subjective reality. And in turn these pictures are themselves subjective facts.
They/it becomes objectivity if I agree with others (being premises) within my subjectivity.
and I don't have to do it, sure some part of me will force me to do it.(Why?)

My reality behaves as being generated by a Qubit. It seems (if I ignore language in matter, and matter as language), that only (potential) properties are used to represent data (subjective reality) and performs operations on these data.
Each life I meet within becomes in that sense but an algorithm execution, still they are as valuable as my own execution, they are part of my execution.
Algorithms lead to a notion of unit, which stand for the objects.
As the objects are linked in the world (mean time between failure of the algorithm(s)) to form facts, the objects (intermediate results) are linked in language to form propositions (being relative to the observer, me, to explain myself to me…!!! I'm circular, but not quite).

My universe (it being subjective or objective) is meaningful if and only if it is a fact which corresponds to a possible fact in the mean time between failures of my own algorithm(s); it's true if it corresponds to an actual fact (intermediate result/ set/ broken symmetry) within my process. It's definitely not true to me if it falls outside my mean time between failures.
It doesn't matter what I think, but if the above is true, then I’m sorry for all the harm I’ve done out of self-ignorance as it seems to fall within my mean time.
I’m not sure how to do this yet, but I’ll try to change my personal life, in such that yours changes for good as well.
Have fun
Longfun

I just try to make sense of a strange possibility—an infinite number of alternate universes.
And I’m probably not alone on this..it is mathematically fairly logical.
So, for the moment I just wonder how an infinite number of alternate universes would present itself to me.
The Heisenberg principle may help....or not.
If I’m to try to pinpoint the exact location of an atomic particle, I will find it virtually impossible.
It had no single location.
As if it has the ability to simultaneously exist in more than one place at “a time”/
This "time" that again is relating to a region I can call universe. (it's but terminology)

Now what if... some particles don’t only exist in our universe (our time) as they have multiple directions of spin/time, flavour etc?
What if they can move into existence in an infinite number of parallel universes as well but only at the right direction of time? 
It doesn't really matter but still no wonder that if one draws on above-mentioned scientific theory and merges it with some mysticism and limited knowledge about the human mind one would think there to be alternate versions of one be living out each ones lives.

And with an infinite number of ones, it means that anything that can happen, does happen—in another universe (within its own time).

If this hypothesis is true, there is a universe where Obama never won the election and another where Princess Diana is still alive. There is a universe where I'm the King of Scotland and a universe where I'm a tea farmer in China. A universe where I'm a celebrity,- a musician, and one where I may be a beggar on a pavement for spare change.

So why am I here?

How, if I’m born in this universe, are there an infinite number of dimensions where I could exist simultaneously?  How would I observe it? Can I observe it?...why? why not?
Would my being be a convergence of decisions I make in all the other realities at a certain angle of time and vice versa?

 Sure if I turn this around I could say that my specific decisions create reality splits… but what if there is no split (only a relative angle of time direction divergence)
In that sense I would be constantly walking all dimensions and time at once. This could explain why at least part of my observation is my observation.
It's probably more complex LOL

So my current version of me is today a convergence of decisions I make in all other potential universes at some equal time, So logically my choice in the now affects my being in all the other universes as well. 

Makes me think.
If each decision I make leads to who I’m in another time (which is rather obvious but unprovable on a larger scale as what I do today affects me in tomorrow) It also affects each other character (all the me/you’s) as well within my reality.

So I came to the (intermediate, as always) conclusion that my decisions are caused by me in other realities as they converge in my reality

And does how I react to that convergence of decisions again affects each one of you and me in all other realities.
(if a butterfly claps its wings….a complete universe in a certain time may come to an end).
added later: Just a thought: can I be held responsible for the other me's? Should we kill all butterfly to prevent this from happening...?
 
Whatever I do, one version of me will get hurt as well,  a version of myself in a parallel universe who also goes on to make a certain set of choices thereby doing what I forced it to do…out of free will, maybe not once but within an infinite amount of times.

At first I heard some want to tap into all the other selves…well by being I already do tap in to all of me, why should I even try … harder.

Just for the wisdom?
Imagine how many wisdom I would be able to take away from myself, the opportunities I’d recognize on their turn disabling other me’s of getting there without suffering.

The skills I’d acquire but would push further into the time line of other me’s, and the pitfalls I would unknowingly create for myself somewhere else.

If I’m constantly meeting my alternate selves; I’m essentially tapping into a sea of knowledge and experience not only brought by you via the internet to me.

So why should I even worry about never to be able to enter alternate realities? I do it all the time all the place...
any specific entering of an alternative universe would not be alternative, as I would stick to my time-line..and without a problem be able to meet myself.

So, for the moment I’ll stick to the golden rule…
I should treat other “me’s as I would like other “me’s to treat myself.
I should not treat me’s in ways that I would not like to be treated.

Still, my past is the past; I should do this in my mind and in my own life right now.

If I can keep myself along those lines…all over the time, the other I’s may have a comfortable life as well… in whatever universe or time, just as much suffering as I think I can handle.
I’m still a long way off but it starts falling into place.
sorry this last line isn't true...

Life is really like a box of chocolates...Forrest Gump ^_^
don't hurt yourself.
Have fun
Longfun