long's Site, ...people can enter

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

basic idea: Essentially only the original roots of a crisis can allow it to become a lesser crisis.

A Crisis finds resolution if its roots tolerate an acceptable reduction in the value of themselves.
In short: A crisis has the ability to reduce itself by reducing its own roots importance.
As if a crisis has the ability to pay itself down with its own importance.

Sure: Insufficient reduction of importance might not produce immediate benefits to outsiders relating to things within the crisis, note that the roots of the crisis really have no any problem with the crisis; roots thrive on the crisis. (think about it... the ones complaining the hardest benefit the hardest(not always true..grrrr) )
Any insufficient write down of effects on its roots will just encourage the entropic evolution of a crisis as roots are given new space able to demand greater return feedback as during the crisis expansion more roots , more space comes in play, more space for doubt and truth....
In at least one universe (ours), however, a regional crisis problem seems to have manifested universally. Some describe it as the big bang, a crisis in which space and matter seem unable to agree to insure one another on the possibility of energy default. (they receive time to be).
In continuous energy interaction it seems as if the universe is buying and selling its own insurance of being,
Any creations within can essentially hedge risky bets with private creation insurance. (what we are doing on this planet within our society)
The universe itself however is behaving as a market for energy swaps it seems (from our perspective) to be designed to handle energy defaults.
It provides for energy consumers who are generating specific inner space a limited time of being within this crisis.
Observation: We energy consumers seem (not necessary) to pay ours energy debt by ending in a certain time. (all used energy is released)
The energy credit default pays out (in the case of default/death) or simply pays nothing (the energy consumer makes payments as expected by adding time within)
Our universe is in such also a ticking time bomb.(the ultimate bubble LOL.
The energy/space/ matter market (our universe) has apparently one unobserved criticism which we ignore completely , mostly due to bets placed on death backed energy securities, as well as other matter / space products.
This universum is  you/me.(depends on how you look at it...)
However, never has this energy/space/ matter market (our universe/you/me) been truly tested on consciousness debt defaults, nor has it ever lived through a time when it as universe was allowed to, without going bankrupt, simply devalue its energy/ matter/ space by one-half within your life time.(at least not observed by us, you/ me)
Imagine the universe shrinking half the size… we would not notice it, at best our time would drastically slow down even reverse in relation to the whole and the unused energy would exponentially increase, but we would not notice it. As at that point it re-converts space into energy instead of the other way around.
Naturally, some matter parts close to the boundary of the universe would lose confidence that the massive universe really provides as much security to its inner…a security which it never has purports, as it has or presents the often false appearance of being or intending ,to provide. (Sorry for my bad English)
If one were to purchase an energy/space/matter default swap for a regional energy debt, then one should be paid out in form of slowing time in the case of energy default. (Just as a slowing economy)
The potential problem is that the solution as decided by our universe isn’t an energy default (where would it go…unless in different time, different properties)
Whatever our universe will do (or evolve in) it will from our perspective never follow a normal operating procedure either. It does what it does because it is….you or is it me...

Observers looking at black holes within the universe are left to wonder how many other suns might agree unilaterally or with others to simply write off their energy debt as if it never existed, or write down the future value of matter surrounding them to make timely payments….time’s up.
A solar eclipse is, by all measures, insolvent, it’s time is up, and a banging default is a next step in the process of universe clearing.
So who must be most afraid….LOL The ones investing in matter as they lose matter over time…which they lose eventually when they seem to die.

Solar eclipses are “weapons of mass destruction,” in an apparently very unregulated universe, but it only creates problems large enough to wipe out an entire solar system or a little more because the matter owners don’t want to move…in time.
Now if you look at the money universe…what’s different…it has time/it just lasts to long.
Still, It’s virtual an unimportant….know that the biggest brains are really looking for jobs to serve something virtual…it is eventually unnecessary in this universe
.
We in this universal crisis have ties to energy, we build our house in I, use it, and forget that our home is but a temporary solution ,we ignore the potential complete failure of the largest energy insurance market , our universe for our personal timed benefit… who’s crazy here...

Going forward, the market for time credit , life will eventually sour to a degree that a meltdown occurs. (a temporal universe collapse) If a single energy contract fails to trigger (money has eternal life), thousands of others made for the purposes of hedging another energy contract will as well, sending a ripple effect through the universe. (money needs to be temporal...imagine the consequences, offspring would be (although relative) be important again, matter ownership easily lost)
We living beings may agree that our (personal) universe is a one-time event that wasn’t necessarily worth throwing out energy credit default swaps on any level of being, still it does for your time being.

If we are to project, quite reasonably, that our universe is the only one to claim energy insolvency, we can be sure that any other types of markets within of all shapes and sizes will ultimately be sucked into this same black hole of energy derivative deflation.
But we can ignore their roots and start over as will the universe continue in a newborn….human….me….you....who knows.
This crisis is in our minds, a crisis if minds, my mind..
.
It is as if I'm starting to understand how to influence my mind, my universe...As I can doubt.
I've to run some tests. LOL
Have fun
Longfun.

Just a rant:
Being observes (unquantified process)  its own potential as displacement (an infinitely quantifiable process) the moment being beliefs to be "a" displacement it adds meaning and appears to become the quantified process.).
But in a sense "being' always believes (again an infinitely quantifiable process) to be displacement (quantified process) even without observation. (being alone adds infinite meaning to the quantifiable process.).

It is as writing zero's in the midst of an infinite amount of papers scatter them around in a space and the sequence , the topological area formed by all the spread out zero's, all zeros are interlinked, and form their own universe. Unobserved from the outside as there is none. (Nostradamus used the same principle LOL)
And so are all numbers 1 2 3 4 colours red blue etc, temperatures hot cold, movement or other properties separate and same universes.
 They seem apparently irrelevant to each other if they al behave in equal zero time, as if they are not quantified, (together in an unidimensional point). They appear not observed by us, but only because we sit on a specific observation line within this being, we are eyes and play out actions when being itself is wondering what it is...It already knows what it is. The rest is inner circular behaviour...
Each within have a different observation questioning being...killing being or emerging being.

Strange but some old tribes are fearful of taking pictures .
I do understand this feeling, each picture writing, story, movie, online chat, do not capture us directly but visualises us in other dimensions ...Each picture can be seen as a snap shot a gate way to another dimension and time line...in frozen pictures the timeline is clearly immensely  slower then in real time.
I can imagine walking trough a mirror which captures us within other dimensions other time lines..As walking trough a portal
Not finished...^_^

Enjoy life and
Have fun
Longfun/Erik

Interesting,
but the more I think of it the more it spirals away from me.

When science is presented as the 'only valid way of knowing', then it is being put in the position formerly occupied by religion.

Note,
I can include any named religion into science as a one of the many ways of knowing,
Just as I can also include (any named) science into religion as one of many ways of knowing.
The only thing that keeps me from doing this is doubt.
now it appears that for the time being, I''m doubting doubt…

It seems I  personally can't exclude any form of imagination from for example science, or religion, or any belief-system.
I ask myself fairly often why I even would exclude anything…and it all boils down to my personal gain or loss in this reality and I inevitably run into personal doubt.
Who am I? Am I? Why shouldn’t I be? In this time I am…

Auw, sorry I just pinched myself.

I can (if I don't like inner conflict) remove both (religion/science) their authority, their naming and enable me the observer to prioritize my way of knowing at will (I will base myself on "subjective" proof as it appears there is no other...).
And as religion claims free will, they seem to agree that any personal conflict within me  is a willed and personal conflict.
I notice that less or no conflict between both science and religion makes them go hand in hand very well within my subjective observer as the ways of knowing  span the same complete region of being, they just add a different perspective.
But are they equally important... that is a different question it depends which way I want to go.

Still if I reduce conflict between both parts of my imagination (as I need a set to put both in) I also reduce their truth authority in any (relative) objective way in relation to overall being, a being that is 100% objective itself.
By doing this I just placed  my 100% objective outside my subjective observer range (as I'm as subjective observer being placed within the process of being by my 100% objective counterpart, me as well :)
Seems I'm a broken symmetry able to wonder within myself.

again, I can doubt that…
Still if the process of my being comes to an end (let's call it death), at that point so does my state of being this subjective me within the process is coming to an end.
as if a part of the broken symmetry simply off setted itself into 100% objectivity.

To me that this emphasizes the authority of imagination (I've to work this out), or the subsets science or religion in their specific regions and views. As each of the subsets are within me being the set and subset from each-other but equal in potential in relation to the overall observer (again me).

Any out of balance in my subjective observation, my world, my “you name it”…happens willingly at the level of the subjective observer, or sets of subjective observers. (Amazing that they are all me?)

Such sets simply freely think to be more objective in relation to an overall then others or other sets, and build their authority on this inner majority within their set and within one being, eventually me.
(as I’m the one so narcissistically affected by my own imagination, as I’m having an undue fascination with myself; …. Man I’m vain ...
Sorry I hope it's just a just a phase i'm going trough.I need to accept and place it as part of myself.

Eventually it is irrelevant to them (the sets emerging science or religion or any other form of imagination) what the other thinks within the whole. (being me)
Like my finger  may find it irrelevant how my hair grows, both are true in their right)
Still, it is relevant to them and their relative truth what the other does and how big in quantity they (the apparent opposition) becomes within the same whole as it affects their nevertheless subjective and in a sense equally important view.
to much hair may affect the use of fingers, fingers can pull out hair...
Auw again.
As eventually they don't exist outside my being or my reality.
Ps.
It is not important if the above doesn't make any sense to you..., but it does to me ,as it makes perfect sense to me.

I wonder (as many within this same area of being)
If it all happens within me, how can my personal behaviour affect my imagination, my observation, my world?
How can my personal behaviour affect my observed world (regionally or globally)?
Should I trust myself to solve it as it is all me or intervene in myself? and Why?
Irrelevant side note:
If I should trust myself, I should trust the Greeks when they move for a referendum….as they are myself...at worst I need to inform myself to make the choice for the right reasons.

A strange new world view appears before me …

Have fun
Longfun

It seems I'm build to need a process (as of knowing or just being),and if I have a process (of knowing) I seem not to need other conditions(everything as the logic of knowing, sits within the process (of knowing),
all about process logic on
http://www.generativescience.org/books/pnb/process-logic.html
 within this process I can add up to infinite proof, but only as long as the process runs.
(Infinite Parallel Redundancy)
So all I know is I'm apparently reliable lol, but is it?
Doesn't reliabilism uses the same principles?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/
do check it out
Without specific process (of for example knowing), an objective I can't know that the conditions are satisfied for this or that process as the I is relating to all processes within objectivity and objectivity itself is unable to decide which process is most important.
A subjective I (as me) can know as I'm the only true observer in relation to myself.(reminds me of monism, or better process philosophy as it pivots on the thesis that the processual nature of existence is a fundamental fact with which any adequate metaphysic must come to terms)

Sure this always becomes more and more doubtful if one adds other apparently subjective observers to me (into infinity?), but from here one will also be able to generate groups of less subjectivity (and higher relative objectivity) but again it will never happen outside the root process.
Again Infinite Parallel Redundancy principle emerges here.
 At best each relative objectivity  will with a slightly different vector of subjectivity or time or any other property in relation to the first be questionable (but what came first? If one goes for causality (chicken-and-egg) , it can only subjectively or relatively objectively be questioned, outside time (no causality in any time direction) and in pure objectivity reflecting on all time there is no choosable causality ).
As each process inevitably at some point within it's infinity will cross with parts of other processes (areas of equality) it enables again different observation (topologically simultaneous ) again with its own time.
why would they cross in the first place? The harmonic series diverges

For me, subjective and objective are able to cover the same process, and this process inner symmetry can be broken in lesser processes each able to be subjective to one and relatively objective to many subjectivists (which may or may not include me).
For me it is it is no wonder that we know or doubt or are able to know and doubt at the same time.(It is even re-applicable in present technology)

If I would really know, my process of knowing a specific just ended it's probability calculation at max 100% or very near to it (if so incorporating doubt into my belief), and I turned it into a true belief but only if I'm within another doubtful system capturing me and my process.

If the above is true LOL, then we live in a universe that expands not because of entropy (although you can call it that way, but because of the harmonic series within objectivity emerging from the one objectivity level diverging (as harmonic series tend to do that) into the inevitable relative objectivity,(being relative to subjectivity), it emerging subjectivity.(or vice versa)

you can even translate entropic gravity in this way... but is it true (relative objectivity): not necessary
It all can be just wind,
hot air.
It all depends on where you want to start.
It seems I started everywhere at once and I'm able to doubt that.
This is scary and fantastic...

have fun
Longfun

For me an undefined truth is but mean time between failure.
Mean time between failure is in a sense the time a truth is really a truth. Anything behaving in time can be seen as a process.
and a process without more information is hard to analysable.
In short:
For me, truth is but an observed process.
Whether documented or not, whether designed or not, whether understood or not, nothing gets done until an observer (or "system") does it .

That is what truth or any process is all about. 

Truth is but a combination of operating procedures, rules, data, and also "nothing" without the supporting observation.(any observation is a physical action)
In such, for me, an undefined truth is but an undocumented process, it may be misunderstood, not optimized, not followed, error-prone, and inefficient.. The observer will never know as there is no process observed or described.

Any theory (of truth) will learn you to model truth-process (or just process) by use of context, data flow, activity, and parallel redundant paths, transformations, and scope/meaning.
Still a theory just creates a model that increases your understanding of the process and the agreed upon rules involved. No wonder that this activity is often more revealing to those who live with(as process in larger process) or in the process itself.(no apparent observable outside)

Any theory on truth will just learn you how to analyse the models in frond of the observer (you/me) and extract requirements for truth ( in relation to you/me)....It appear it will never be complete.
Sure, the proposed techniques can be used to identify problems in the truth-situation or be used to predict truth behaviours in a proposed (defined) truth-solution....But is it the truth?
If we have a theory of the mean time between failure, (as in infinite parallel redundancy)
This theory is such that, given any well-formed statement in math, this theory will generate another path telling us how to determine the mean time between failure of this well formed mathematical statement.

How do we tell that such theory is THE theory of mean time between failure? simple we don't.

all we do is feed theory of mean time between failure into the system we know as life (it itself is a process between failure). point before birth and after dead seem very similar to me...
rant: If not then the system simply is a little larger then expected... but still just a process having an apparently larger truth.

so all we do is start observation from within the process (us)
But this would be unsatisfactory, since theory of mean time between failure may still be in error in the largest sense outside observation. In such all it does  is enable us to generate a statement we can evaluate (add meaning to) as "true" for this particular theory of mean time between failure.(who knows how many other theories there are on truth.)
While it shows that theory of mean time between failure is consistent in the smaller processes within the overall process, it does not show that theory of mean time between failure is necessary true all over the place.
The definition is key.
We could take all the formulas of maths (), feed them into theory of mean time between failure and see if what is generated in each case correctly allows us to evaluate the mean time between failure of the input. But this set can be extended into infinity. it will never be conclusive.

This assumes that we have some way of assessing the mean time between failure of a statement, (but only from within) separate from specific theories of mean time between failures. (as for example religions)
Mean time between failure is but the time a truth is truth within a process.
it is but the time a process is a process, if the process changes the time ends or better the direction of time changes course according to the following process (if any, as it is not necessary).

A common strategy for increasing the mean time between failure (truth) of a system is to add redundant parallel paths.
one observer has a lifetime, its truth, to proof life he can look for other life and in doing so add parallel paths.
If each path has an exponential failure rate of x truths a lifetime, then its truth is 1/x truths per lifetime.
From here one can mathematically show that the truth of two parallel paths (two humans living) is 3/ (2 times x truths a life time).

The redundant path (that other human) increases the truth of life of the first by 50%. Each additional parallel path (human or other) increases this specific truth still further, although the increase per additional path is less as we add more and more paths (or more and more observations on the same process).

In general the overall system (being life or being, you name it) with N channels can be modelled as a simple sequence of states (having its own process logic), beginning with the state in which all N components are working (the apparent now) , and ending in the state with all of the components failed (past and future fall outside observation, it "appears" as life fails at that point)

The mean time from the "N paths working" state (lifelines, you name it)  to the "0 paths working"(end of being)  state is just the sum of the mean times (all truths) from each state to the next.
This immediately gives the result that the truth of a system with N parallel redundant paths (without repairs, as in our world) is proportional to the partial sum of the harmonic series.

Since the harmonic series diverge (first proven in the 14th century by Nicole Oresme), it follows that a system consisting of an infinite number of parallel paths, each of which has a mean time to failure of (say) 1 /x truths a life time, would never fail. And in such always be. (Notice this is seen from within, and logical the more observers or humans the bigger the survival rate of the species).

Since the exponential distribution is non-zero for all time (we do need time to observe  as this seems to be a physical premise), it is obvious that in an infinite population we will never find the “all failed” state. (the problems with species is on the other hand that they are part of a larger process they'll never reach infinity, so even at close to infinite level they all can die out)

Nothing is unobserved from within.
 It’s interesting to consider the variance of the truth for a highly parallel system as is our world our societies (which again carries many such systems within).
The variance of an exponential distribution with mean time of 1/ x truths a lifetime is simply (1/x truths a lifetime) x 2.  
Since each transition in our sequence of states is exponential with means 1/ x truths a lifetime, 1/(2 x truths a lifetime ), ..., 1/(N x truths a lifetime ), and since the variance of the sum of two (or more) random variables is the sum of their variances,

It follows that the variance of the truth for an N-path system is given by
 truth (any truth)
(sorry for all the maths: do check
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath326/kmath326.HTM
Do check this maths page for the formula. and more relevant explanations.
 
 Although the truth of life itself goes to infinity as more parallel paths and /or parallel life (observation lines) are added, the variance on the truth of life converges on the finite value (you/ me).
We add the meaning….
We (observers) make it true by living our meaning.
We analyse any process within and deduce our own from the outside in (by doing this we add lines within).
And as the above tries to show:
From the outside there is nothing to see, not even potential as even that already sits within.
.
conclusion:
Personally I’m glad there is something called "nothing".(it enables us being.)
Have fun
Longfun

disclaimer:
As always this are personal thoughts and personal impressions.
Intended for my understanding of myself, if you or any find it relevant please investigate, cross reference and don't take anything for granted. ^_^.

That's the question we all want an answer to, but it is rather obvious,
What are the premisses,
the box (our universe) has no outside.
All in the box is (although it appears separate), at some level interconnected
The only thing you can proof with certainty to yourself is that "you/I "exist.
(I'm,  You appear to be)
The logical answer would then be for the amusement of yourself.

As there are no outer limits, all I/you are able to observe must be part of an inner divide, but not on all levels (potentially infinite) equally (there is no need for this).
 If so we had pure black and white. But we don't, we have all the colours separate + together making up white and all shades of gray + pinch black + apparently we have the absence of colour as well equalling a kid of absolute zero.(is this the outside?)

The observation happens (from our perspective in a broken symmetry, each life or observation is spanning the whole of the box, the only apparent difference between all observation is the direction, and to make it more complex this direction isn't straightforward, no it stretches into infinity and it itself is also broken onto a kind of broken symmetry.

As the box is infinite the amount of observation happening at once is infinite, that within such area observation will be able to interact, becomes purely topological logic.

Within such box it is logical to see points (properties outside time?) come close (physical movement?) to each other and even interact with each other, generate worlds, populations etc, as within infinite this apparent universe is but a drop on the scale of infinity.

Sure you can ignore it all and say it isn't me, and also that is a logical part of the self understanding of the box.
Just as any doubt etc.

Now, I'm just collecting observations and putting them together in a for me specific way.
 And what I found so far is that anything in this box is at one point a perception in the absence of a stimulus.
The box, you/me is conscious and awake (it has no way to verify this to itself, except it experiences itself) but without outside it is completely cut of from external stimuli.
In a stricter sense, itself and we are one and at the same time perceptions in a conscious and awake state exactly in the absence of external stimuli .

All qualities of what we call "real" (relative and continuously changing within) perception must come from within, still they are vivid to some points within, even substantial, and located in an apparent external objective space (but even that is within the box, any emergence you name it sits within).
But it is not only an hallucination, but a dream and illusion as well (depending on the approach)
The box which does not involve wakefulness; but in relation to us does involve distorted or misinterpreted real perception; imagery, which does not mimic real perception (it is) and is under voluntary control; and pseudo hallucination, (we can think and act in it as separates even if we are one)
It is not under voluntary control but its own (being all controls at once). The box is and in such we have no choice than to exist in it (as we are)

No wonder that we suffer from the same symptoms in life form. The box has no way and all the ways to calibrate it senses,  what ever happens inside seems correctly sensed and interpreted stimulus at the same time (look at our real perception) .
In some cases I can even give  some additional (and typically bizarre) significance to things  (gods wizardry, magic...)

The Hallucinations occur in the box and in any sensory modality able to be in this box (infinite in quantity but also including the "not occurring" as well 
In contrast to the point called human this life is fairly simple we have visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, etc  still all the other possibilities of observation are still there.
We just mirror them in( (via devices and tools) to our range of observation being larger than zero as on that level the importance is simply turned down. (how and why, is again part of your introspection)

If the box ever appeared to realise it being (if that is even possible without inner division/broken symmetry already being in place)  it became its own mild form of hallucination and disturbed but disturbed on all senses and all times.
If this is even possible within such a box?
I presume any disturbance simply is, as the box is,and each disturbance will span the whole box together with all imaginary disturbances spanning the whole box at once.
 
The rest is in relation to us history. ^_^
The doubt is obvious, as the box doubts itself, the rest is amusement (it has all the time) and self understanding of the box and its own capacities on all levels at once...And each "I" is the origin of the box, and each "I" is also its end. (If you die your universe collapses with you... again you can doubt that :))

I no longer wonder that I can see movement in my life, or hearing noises and/or voices in my life. LOL...maybe I should.

My life is just part or even the origin of a very common paranoid schizophrenia happening within the box...as the box is having at some point this paranoid schizophrenia as well.
:) Else we would never be able to describe it.

The box is being benevolent (telling the "I" good things about itself) and malicious, cursing the the apparent emergence and itself, etc.
(Knowing my self ,I'm no longer surprised about this) .

As my world is never silent.
I can truly understand that this box is having auditory hallucinations of the malicious or good (depending the origin and definition) type as well and at the same time "I" know that at some point this is not true at all.
People  do talk behind other people's back. as if life is also an auditory hallucination, the source of thisr visual counterpart can also be behind the my own back.
The visual counterpart is the feeling of being looked-stared at, usually with malicious intent (but not necessary) .
Frequently, auditory hallucinations and their visual counterpart are experienced within life by the "I" together.

another premise? :
This box is at some point delirious, completely deprived of sleep, psychotic, broke symmetry-disordered, etc, at once.
As each point within it is asking the same question at once and in any possible way.
Who am I, and why.

The answer appears within such box fairly simple, it is because it is. but as it never found its outside it will never know for sure. (who or what is the outside?)

This doubt will always be there and emerge from time to time.(Especially at points where the box meets itself in ways which are hard to accept in relation to the rest of observation.)
Now I'm becoming preachy:
The suppression of doubt (reduction to near zero) is for example also the goal of religion, they try to do this on a doubtful basis (a belief in higher form)
doubt is fought by doubt
in such they keep the balance for the (wrong= debatable)  reasons and if wrong in relation to understanding  the problem needs to emerge from time to time.
I think we simply need to accept what we are, and have a healthy doubt.
It will not solve suffering all over the place as this is an infinite universe / box in the first place...
without boundaries this suffering will keep in place, but one can ride a wave of doubtless being for a time being.

The above is a reply which went horribly wrong... in length
still I feel it is close to what I see as my world.

Have fun
Longfun

Sure, something may be logically possible but physically impossible.

But all I notice is that if one breaks "possibility" 's inner symmetry in two parts (logical and physical).
It makes them relative to each other (1)  and to the observer of possibility (2) (his position is undecided).
The observer (you/me) can use the broken symmetry as each others divisor, or add a personal biggest common divisor.

Eventually the divisors are (quantifiable) relative.
Eventually the observer decides the importance and range from within.

Or as on the net, "Sets of" observers are enabled to debate with other observers.
They no longer debate "possibility" (logical or physical) directly, but their own relativity (between observers) in terms of possibility.

The basic broken symmetry simply emerges sets of inner process logic which can be compared and understood in relation to ignorance (or zero).

Some of the observed process logic will seem to run for ever,
others are short lived,
the quantity however is unlimited,
but strangely enough they all eventually end (in relation to the observers) if the term "possibility is no longer used by them.
In relation to itself it will go on forever (no outside time to relate to)

So are only physically possible things can happen in our universe?

This is in my understanding a limiting/ignoring claim , as you limit "possible"'s quantity (Use the term physical), and keep your universe unquantified.
Unless one wanted to say in our "physical" universe.
As one has a possibility to find a "logical" or "possible" universe as well.

The above statement just made, for me, any logical possibility "physical" and any physical possibility "logical".
But one will only agree with me if the interpretation of the terms logical and physical are understood in a very similar way as I understand those terms.
Them being multi dimensional regions between -1 0 1.
And in fact the same region but observed from a different perspective.

Both (all) terms are also relative to the interpretation of the (set of) observers.(the difference or unbalance in broken symmetry ignites debate)

And I like it
Have fun
Longfun