I mean we can observe finite mapping of the mathematical
  world onto physical universe. Which in itself is a wonder,
  because it exists. I find no reason for it to be so, 
  otherwise that it is related through common substance. 
  
  Even Reals are not real.
  
  Math is mental. Math objects are infinitely larger
  than physical world.
  
  Material universe is a special case of mathematical world.
  because you can construct infinite physical worlds if you 
  choose different relations from the infinite.  
  
  You can observe infinite worlds through consciousness. 
  Only one of them is physical. 
  
  If there is a hypothetical one to one mapping of 
  physical world onto a set of models then consciousness 
  is larger than the physical universe. 
  
  The question is whether that is true. 
  How much of the physical universe is 
  unknowable in principle.
  
  If the material world > consciousness, then there 
  exist things that are possible to observe, but 
  impossible to know. 
  
  And the converse, if consciousness > material world
  then there exist things that are impossible to observe, 
  but possible to imagine.
  
  I mean there is physical brain, neurons, observations 
  and other stuff which is strongly relating self body 
  and consciousness. But maybe it is so by design? 
  
  The question is what is the difference 
  between me being a brain and me imagining 
  being a brain.   
  
  That is my take into it as I am approaching 30. We will
  see my opinion later in life.  

edit, formatting

That is awesome

What I've learned from working with transactional databases is how to deal with things like this.

You have a time in the evening, now that time is blocked by your friend (they didn't commit nor rollback). You can't process further because of that lock on your time. The lock is unspecific (there is no start nor end of time).

So you become anxious, because you need to route things, but you can't do this because of the undefined commitment.

There are several strategies that can work:

  1. kill the undefined commitment (you can tell them that something came up, so you can be there no longer)
  2. specify the bounds of the lock, so that it won't take everything (ask them again for the time and place, if they won't reply do the 1.) 
  3. Guess it. If it is a drink, then it is after work. Then how much it usually takes me to get there, do it + some padding in case something goes wrong. Basically you do the work on your side. 
  4. Discard all conflicts. (Tell everyone that you have an important meeting, so you will interact with them tomorrow). Now your whole day is waiting for that meeting and nothing else. In some circumstances it is the right way to go. 
  5. Optimistic scheduling. Schedule everything to the best of your ability. If something conflicts, kill or reschedule the less important thing. (I am sorry,  but something came up, so I can't be there today, maybe tomorrow?)
  6. Simply wait. As the day progresses you will get more information to make the  right choice

P.S. I apologize for my English (I am severely out of practice with my writing skills)

You're right, but note for onlookers that even realizing that this variety of strategies exists can be the work of years, and learning to apply them years more. Whereas it always seems that the "other people" apply them instinctually.

My favorite is when people suggest you behave based on context such as the person's emotional state, voice inflection, etc. It's like, "If I could do that, I wouldn't have this insane matrix of rules."

That is the use case that we have to work with quite often. In the end, we use something along the lines of

  (update-fn (fn [{:keys [address]}
                   :as customer]
               (if address (update customer :address clojure.string/capitalize) customer))
    customers)

which pattern matches on some `object` (map) and does processing. We find it less fragile than specifying explicit path to an element. It can also work in a polymorphic fashion. On the other hand, there is a risk of a false positive (when you modify address that you shouldn't). But you can mitigate that risk by using additional checks (in case of a customer, you can check for additional set of fields that are specific for that object(map) edit:formatting

I've got 10/10. I've chosen to select people that I was instinctively afraid of as serial killers. It would be interesting to try this experiment on a larger dataset.