Molly, I agree with you.
(BTW awesome avatar ! - thought you were playing the flute before I had a closer look)

Im a little lost too about how and why temperal correlated perspective looping creates a persistant standing wave-effect (for desparate want of a better phrase - which Im assuming is "pinched off" to be continually present in the past and the future) that imposes a field of subjective experience on all those whoes "attention is primed for the subject" (or shared in whatever experience is related - but aren't they (meaning who and which events) also highly subjective to the "creater" of the loop/wave? as well as the creaters intention/perspective and what that involved at the time of loop creation ?

If true, is this a general rule for any reality phenomena to be a shared experience ? If so it sounds like a chicken and the egg thing. (however it is a thought with self-defining integrity) .... if not why not ? what makes that consciousness so different ? and why are its "realitiy rules" that alien ?

Perhaps simular "phenomena" could easier explained as
(however still having the same self-defining flaws unfortunately):

"Expectation attracts subjectively correlated events"
(which drives what you prime your attention for anyway)

How that expectation forms in the first place is again subjectively dependant and iteratively defining.

I view mutual reality-causation like magnets thrown in a tub of glue that is itself subject to the "weather" that the movement of the magnets make...

Although each magnet can perhaps change its polarity on its own, they have their own "polarity" inertia (how long it takes for your perspective to readjust), orientation inertia (glue increases this) and will also effect each others orienation due to magnetic field effects (sort of like how stars move in a globular cluster)

Perhaps when you "dream" this rule applies still
however there is no glue and no other "magnets" messing with yours - thus causation is much faster and events are almost continually consistent to your expectations (genearlly emotive driven expectations).

This would also explain why dream events that "dont make sense" during waking reflection did not seem to occur to you at the time of dreaming (your attention was too focused on the next expectation - "giving freedom" for what you did direct your attention to).

If so, this could also explain what I posted in your "Local reality" thred.

The only advantage this has over "M"'s view is that it can be applied to all consciousness (regardless how alien they ... lets say atoms have consciousness ... their expectations sets could focus on reality directed by forces that dominate their environment - still allowing expectation synergy with "us" and the rest of the world - Perhaps if it didnt we woudl be sharing it).

Psy studies have been done on psychic skills with the results seeming to favour what the originator of the experiement was expecting to see - even though the environments were controlled and the sample groups large and random.

(Thus the "observer" is releavent even for macroscopic occurances - Quantum physics also concludes the same)

[ Making Repeatability extremely difficult as all you may be doing is creating a snapshot of combined expectations ]

One small note: Materialists will not stop until they can explain everything, if even such elusive thing as "subjective expectation" is releavent - it would be a property they would want to chase and measure to later expliot just like the rest of us. (they may just be going down the "hard path" to do so)

(BTW I thought anything 180 degrees out of phase with our reality could share the same space-time but not be noticed)

I believe it's a question of the paradigm to which you choose to ascribe. If operating under a strictly materialistic paradigm, there is little to no room for this kind of thinking, except, perhaps, under the quantum mind approach. In that case, many of life's seemingly unexplainable phenomena can be "allowed" into the discussion. For example, psychic phenomena, which many strict materialists will feel compelled to dismiss as outright poppycock, can now be theoretically examined through interesting interpretations of non-locality. It is a stretch, though, and makes many physicists uncomfortable, if not downright grouchy when you try to bring it into “serious” conversation.

I understand and respect those who choose to operate under what seems to me to be an extremely limited framework. Then again, I don't really feel the need to specialize in any field either and may never be viewed as much of an authority on anything as a result. There are plenty of people who enrich science and other fields by laboring with single-minded focus on subjects well within the comfort zone of the currently vogue scientific paradigm. I understand that to such folk unverifiable information is simply extraneous and a waste of valuable time. More power to them!

Of course, many breakthroughs arise from attempts to merge seemingly unrelated disciplines and it is this approach that I find more to my liking. As such, I try to keep as open a mind as possible and am willing to consider a great deal as falling with the realms of possibility. In many ways, this is a more challenging way to operate because with fewer constraints there are fewer constants. I have my own standards of logic which must be upheld that I believe include the standard model but also allow a somewhat larger arena in which to play.

Religious views likewise confine one’s views to a certain paradigm, offering the benefits of an in depth plumbing of the belief system. My own tendency to, perhaps superficially, study various systems and take what I like and fashion my own spirituality may or may not allow me to reap the same rewards that a devotee to one path can potentially achieve but such an approach is fundamental to my being, as is respect to all paths.