I already know, for certain, that there is one reality: my subjective reality. If I were to follow Occam's Razor strictly, there is no evidence that all other creatures are not merely philosophical zombies and that the only thing that exists is my mind and perceptions. I personally am very critical of Occam's Razor anyway (which is why I personally believe in other subjective realities for other creatures), as it only hints at probability, but offers no answers. If throughout history philosophers always followed it, we would have made less progress at a slower speed. The ancient Greek philosophers who created the idea of atoms, small balls that compose all matter, were not following Occam's Razor and turned out to be correct.In that case, let me ask you a few questions. If only subjective realities exists, then why do they all appear to follow the same consistent physical laws? Also, do you think that inanimate matter (or any non-sentient entities) exist independent of subjective observers, or do they cease to exist when not being observed? If sentient entities are the result of some universal consciousness (as you alluded to in a separate post), then does that consciousness observe a reality, and if so is that reality subjective or objective?
As for the objective reality where subjective realities collide, I do not believe it is necessary, since by "collide" I simply mean interact, and time and space would not be necessary for this with metaphysics that travel directly between subjective realities.
The subjective realities may appear to be following the same physical laws because they all diverged from the same first subjective reality, hence the similarity in their functions. Non-sentient entities do not exist if not being "observed" (experienced may be a better term). However, supernatural sentient beings of any sort (spirits, gods, the first sentience which may be "God" that spawned all other sentient minds) could explain how inanimate objects are experienced (therefore existing) despite not being experienced by animal or plant sentience.
I understand that this theory may not be correct in part or in whole, but since I have never experienced objective reality (or anything outside my subjective reality), I do not feel intellectually or logically compelled to place my faith in anything outside it but my personal speculations (which have the potential to be as true as anyone else's, including the ones we hold onto out of tradition, assumption, and keeping the status quo in society and science.)
There is much "alternative metal" and "glam metal" out there, that I am sure ANUS rejects, that clearly links itself back to bands like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, etc.Well, glam is pop music dressed up as metal, so I don't think it can be considered part of the natural evolution of metal. Alternative metal is either some sort of contrived eclectic mish-mash (and therefore non-organic) or Nu Metal, which is a marketing term invented to describe the music of furious victims of childhood sexual abuse. So, I remain convinced my definition is accurate.
I do not mean to be offensive, but in this post you have demonstrated that there are certain historical facts you are ignorant of. Glam is a separate genre from pop music. Pop music (I refer to the genre known simply as "pop," not the word "pop" as an abbreviation for "popular music" which is an umbrella term for many genres including metal itself due to metal's roots) began in the pre-rockn'roll era, whereas glam rock evolved out of rock around the late 60's; they are separate genres.
The genre known as "glam metal" began in the mid-70's when Dee Snider joined Twisted Sister, a glam rock band from New York associated with another glam rock band known as New York Dolls. Dee Snider was, in addition to being a fan of rock in general, a fan of the emerging heavy metal movement; two of his favorite bands were Black Sabbath and Judas Priest. He consciously decided to mix heavy metal and glam rock because he felt the genres have good chemistry, thus creating what we call "glam metal." Many bands followed Twisted Sister, who were underground for almost a decade before having any mainstream success, but the "glam metal" movement was alive with many bands in the 70's such as Killer Kane Band, Circus Circus, Ratt, Sister, Wrathchild, Girl, Dokken, and London. When Motley Crue, at one point just another one of these then obscure bands, landed a record deal and released their debut, a number of those bands managed to get launched into fame as well. Others just broke up or remained obscure. Anyway, back on the subject of Dee Snider and Twisted Sister, he definitely always thought of himself as a metalhead, but claims that he felt embarrassed when glam metal became very commercial in the late 80's with bands like Warrant who had lost the idea of making raunchy heavy metal/glam rock, and simply streamlined the music as a commercial product. Despite where glam metal ended up, it is historically clear that it is rooted partially in metal but not entirely (just like speed/thrash metal).
Alternative metal bears a similar but less interesting history of bands like King's X, Helmet, and Faith No More which mixed heavy metal with various forms of alternative rock.
After looking at how these genres became into being, and studying them, I know I personally became very suspicious of why punk/metal fusions assumed themselves as more metal than their sibling fusions. Actually, I think it's clear; punk's attitude is so hungry and irreverent that it tried to eat up everything else; this hungry and irreverant attitude is not exactly metal, though, which is more civilized in its masculinity (ex. biking in clean leather versus thrashing in dirty t-shirt and jeans.)