Even in the inorganic world all that concerns an atom of energy is its immediate neighbourhood: distant forces balance each other. Here is the root of perspectivity, and it explains why a living organism is "egoistic" to the core. — Nietzsche

"YOU" is a falsification in unity forced through the psychology of grammar which is irreducibly Platonic. What you is:

Life" might be defined as a lasting form of force-establishing processes, in which the various contending forces, on their part, grow unequally....

The triumphant concept "energy" with which our physicists created God and the world, needs yet to be completed: it must be given an inner will which I characterise as the "Will to Power"—that is to say, as an insatiable desire to manifest power; or the application and exercise of power as a creative instinct, etc. Physicists cannot get rid of the "actio in distans" in their principles; any more than they can a repelling force (or an attracting one). There is no help for it, all movements, all "appearances," all "laws" must be understood as symptoms of an inner phenomenon, and the analogy of man must be used for this purpose. It is possible to trace all the instincts of an animal to the will to power; as also all the functions of organic life to this one source. — Nietzsche

all "laws" must be understood as symptoms of an inner phenomenon, and the analogy of man must be used for this purpose. — Nietzsche

Yes, I agree with that. However, my concern is why it's one particular inner phenomenon is playing in the Window, how was that selected, if there were multiple Windows, then why am I not them, in fact only one Window is what is "Mine", and if anybody else claimed to possess this "Mineness", they are lying, or there is a contradiction in the nature of things.

Anyway, I think I exhausted what I mean by "You".

I mean, there can be multiple heres and nows, but still the fact is that I'm only seeing one of them, and how come it's this one if they are all here and now, shouldn't I be seeing them all? — bizso09

No. Because, while you are here, experiencing this coordinate zero, other coordinate zeros are everywhere, in all directions, up to about 13.5 BLY from you. How could you experience the coordinate zero that Arcturus experiences?

That's an interesting pivot. At this point, I think the disagreement is no longer about logic or indexicals. You’re explicitly adopting an ontology on which existence itself is defined by relation to a unique Window, and nothing exists independently of it. Given that assumption, symmetry is ruled out by stipulation. But that assumption is precisely what I reject, and nothing in the logical facts about first-person perspective forces it. So the contradiction you describe is conditional on that ontology, not a consequence of logic itself.

However, my concern is why it's one particular inner phenomenon is playing in the Window, how was that selected, if there were multiple Windows, then why am I not them, — bizso09

There is one particular brain, lying behind one particular pair of eyes, which is instantiating you. Other brains behind other pairs of eyes instantiate other people.

Well of course if someone else claims to be someone or something else, its a contradiction.
— Philosophim

Exactly. So my question is, are you claiming to be a "You" right now in the real world? Because if so, it's a contradiction. — bizso09

If by "You" you mean a synonym for "Philosophim", then its not a contradiction. If you mean "You" as a separate entity to "Philosophim" then its defacto a contradiction because you're saying one is actually two. That's impossible.

The only axiom I make use of is the fact that I exist. This existence is what I call Window. The property of this existence is first person perspective, and The World exists linked to it. These facts are all derived from the axiom.

How do I rule out Symmetry? Let's assume the existence of another Window, call it Window2. Since it's not something that is me, that implies that it exists outside of The World, because it cannot be related to me, and it's inaccessible to me. Since this Window2 is also first person perspective, it necessarily exists in TheWorld2.

Now let's introduce an encapsulating world, EWorld, that contains both subworlds TheWorld and TheWorld2. I can do this because the definition of world is everything that exists, this makes EWorld not disjoint. I ask in this EWorld, where is the experience happening in first perspective? Is it in TheWorld2? The answer is no, because if it was yes, then I would be Window2 now. However, the axiom above states that I am Window full stop. Therefore, I know that it's TheWorld that has the Window and that's where I am. Window2 doesn't exist because it's not first person perspective, and it's not me.

This implies that by virtue of I existing as the Window, I can disprove the existence of other Windows, not just in my world, but "The World", which is global and absolute. The existence of a Window precludes the existence of other Windows. Since there is already one Window, me, which I know due to the axiom, I know that for example you cannot be a Window2, unless we permit logical contradiction.

But you haven't derived your conclusion from the axiom “I exist”. You have simply defined existence itself as relation to your Window, and then ruled out other Windows on the basis of that definition. Given that ontology, symmetry is excluded by stipulation. But there is no need to accept this ontology, and there is nothing in the axiom "I exist" that forces it. So the contradiction you describe is conditional on your metaphysical definitions. If those definitions are rejected (and I do reject them), then the contradiction never surfaces.

Well, something can either exist in relation to the Window, or independent of it. In the previous post, I covered the case of independence. This leaves us with existing in relation. I don't see an alternative.

Even though the java programming language can be compiled to run on any computer, it is an additional fact of the world that which specific computer it actually runs on. It is convenient to ignore this fact in order to "avoid inconsistent semantics", but that ignorance is wrong nevertheless, when we talk about the world in its totality. — bizso09

Suppose Alice the realist talks to Bob the irrealist, about an Alice-independent world that she believes to subsume the world of Bob the irrealist. Then should Bob think that Alice is wrong to assert this and correct her for being ignorant of irrealism, or should Bob simply nod on his irrealist understanding that no matter what Alice expresses, she must be expressing facts about her Alice-dependent world?

What truth-criteria should Bob use when interpreting Alice's claims about an Alice-independent world? As an irrealist, Bob presumably would not claim to understand Alice's claims about Alice's world, but presuambly Bob would also not claim that Alice has cognitive access to Bob's world; in which case Bob cannot interpret her as making claims about his world after all, and so can only nod and smile when Alice speaks about an absolute reality.

Here's another way to put it, why there is a contradiction.

We all agree that we live in one world, which is the actual world. In this actual world, there is a property which tells us "What's playing in the current experience that is visible now". Now, depending on which creature we are, we give different answers to this question. But the problem with the question is that it is not dependent on who's asking it. The question is not "Given that I am Esse, what's playing in the current experience that is visible now", but rather it's without the "given" clause. So the question concerns something inherently singular, global and absolute about the world.

The contradiction arises because although the question is absolute, and concerns the real actual world, and not some hypothetical imaginary parallel universe, nor is it dependent on the asker, still in spite of all this, each creature in the world gives different answers to it. If we assume, that each creature is honest and communicates the truth, then this is a logical contradiction about the world.

What truth-criteria should Bob use when interpreting Alice's claims about an Alice-independent world? — sime

The truth criteria should be logical consistency, which is the same in both the realist and irrealist understanding of the world, as well as the assumption that both Alice and Bob report honestly what they understand about the world.

Let's describe a world with four people in it. Alice, Bob, Cecil, Dan. In addition, there is You in this world. — bizso09

Well, that would be a 5th person then. Perhaps you don't really mean 'in addition'.

Now consider two distinct scenarios:

Scenario 1: You are Alice. This means that you have access to Alice's thoughts, feelings, perception, and can see, hear, feel through her body.
Scenario 2: You are Bob. This means that you have access to Bob's experience, etc.
The question is, what is the difference between the two scenarios?

You obviously have a very dualistic & anthropocentric way of thinking, where there is a separate set of experiencers and only human beings to be experienced.
The difference is a different attachment between the pairs, sort of like you choosing to watch one movie instead of a different one across the hall in the cinema. OK, that's pretty epiphenomenal. Perhaps it's more like you choosing to play one character or another in Mario Kart.
Yea, your perception of the world would differ based on your choice of characters to play. So what?


Point is, no contradiction has been identified.

EITHER there's some spirit soul thing, a ghost going around to these bodies inhabiting them, in which case there's no paradox because there is a real difference

OR there are not these spirits and souls, and then there's no "you" that isn't synonymous with Bob, or synonymous with Alice, and there's no paradox. — flannel jesus

This pretty much sums up my thinking as well. No matter the model used, no paradox apparent.

In reply to that you wrote:

You is not meant to be a spirit or soul, but more like a reference point, or pointer, i.e. a window of first person perspective. — bizso09

Call it what you want. Either the pointer is identical with the thing pointed to, or it is separate, and can point to this or that. "You are Alice" is phrased in the latter way of thinking, especially when it is suggested that it instead points elsewhere.

@Joshs takes all this (especially the Gemini log) apart from the Wittgenstein way of thinking.

No. Because, while you are here, experiencing this coordinate zero, other coordinate zeros are everywhere, in all directions, up to about 13.5 BLY from you. How could you experience the coordinate zero that Arcturus experiences? — Patterner

Indeed, a coordinate system is an abstraction and thus can have its origin placed anywhere. My only nit on your post is the 13.5 BLY. Why that? Certainly somebody could place an origin a trillion LY from here without running into problems. Our particular typical assignment of 'here' does not concern any part of the universe that has not dependence on human notice.

I argue that in the world, the You is an absolute global unique fact. — bizso09

and you run into contradictions, which you note in the title. That sort of assertion works only under solipsism, and you don't seem to be suggesting that.

I'm just deriving conclusions starting from the fact that I exist. — bizso09

Depending on your person definition of 'to exist' in that context, I don't necessarily consider it to be fact. OK, it works under most idealistic definitions (like cogito ergo sum), where existence is founded on experience.

So here you attempt to spell out a contradiction, which perhaps is a contradiction only in your assertions, meaning you need a better model.

Here's another way to put it, why there is a contradiction.

We all agree that we live in one world, which is the actual world. In this actual world, there is a property which tells us "What's playing in the current experience that is visible now". — bizso09

Pretty bold assertion with that 'we all agree that ...' bit. I for one agree with less than a quarter of all that. Irrelevant since you have a classical dualistic model going on here, so my opinion of non-classical and monistic matters not.



Now, depending on which creature we are, we give different answers to this question.[/quote]There's your problem. Your asking an objective question and suggesting that the answer is subjective. It can't be. The answer is either that there is one experience of some universal experiencer, or that the question is ill formed. Regardless of the model you choose, everybody's answer should be the same ('everything' and 'category error' respectively). If anybody gives a different answer, then they're wrong. So there's no contradiction.

But the problem with the question is that it is not dependent on who's asking it. The question is not "Given that I am Esse, what's playing in the current experience that is visible now", but rather it's without the "given" clause.

Exactly. So the answer is not what Esse 'has playing' (as you put it), since that's not what's asked. Surely the answer, whatever it is, should be the same answer despite who answers it. How do you not see this?

If we assume, that each creature is honest and communicates the truth, then this is a logical contradiction about the world.

No, them saying different answer is giving an answer to a different question, so them all giving wrong answers does not result in a contradiction, it just means nobody understood the question.

Pretty bold assertion with that 'we all agree that ...' bit. I for one agree with less than a quarter of all that. — noAxioms

Which part do you not agree with? 1) That we all live in the actual real world. 2) That we can tell what the current experience is, because guess what, it's our own very viewpoint, and we are aware that we exist as that.

The answer is either that there is one experience of some universal experiencer, — noAxioms

Each of us is the universal experiencer in our own world, but there is one world only. Contradiction.

everybody's answer should be the same ('everything' and 'category error' respectively). If anybody gives a different answer, then they're wrong. — noAxioms

The answer should be the same, but it's not the same. Each person's answer is different and it's right, but collectively it's wrong. Contradiction

So there's no contradiction. — noAxioms

See above

Look, where the "You" is placed is a global absolute unique fact to each person. This is derived from the axiom that they exist. In the world where each person exists, there is a center, which is this "You", and in that world, this "You" is a property. Ignoring this fact means there's no such centre in their world, which goes against their own very experience of reality.

People argue, that there's a "section" of reality, which exists, aka other people's "You"s, that is not accessible to "You". But since "You" is nothing more than a coordinate system ground zero, this is arguing that there are things that exist, which cannot be placed on this coordinate system. Since the coordinate system is the definition of the world, and existence, in my view if something is not on this coordinate system, it means it doesn't exist.

Therefore, when other people argue that for example, my "You" is not on their coordinate system, then that means I don't exist according to them. But it is an axiom that I exist, because I'm here typing this out, and I know I am the center or "You".

Existence is binary, and the coordinate system is the world, which includes everything that exists. There are no different flavours of existence. But this is exactly what's asserted. That existence is non-binary, and each "You" exists in a different plane of existence.

If multiple coordinate systems were the truth, we could then just introduce a new coordinate system, that includes all these coordinates systems. And this would be the real coordinate system of existence. In that, we could ask again, where the "You" is, and we would get conflicting answers.

We cannot have conflicting answers to the exact same question. This is the contradiction.

One last thing, where the "You" is is not dependent on who's asking it. For example, we cannot say that if I put the "You" there, then it's there, if I put the "You" here, then it's here, because there are multiple centres in the world. You always know who you are without a doubt, and it's not a conditional statement, hence "You" is absolute and globally unique.

Which part do you not agree with? — bizso09

My point was that it is presumptuous of you to suggest that everyone holds the same personal beliefs as you.
I agree with neither 1 nor 2 of the new items you mention. I'm not trying to evangelize my view upon you.

Each of us is the universal experiencer in our own world, but there is one world only. Contradiction.
...
The answer should be the same, but it's not the same. Each person's answer is different and it's right, but collectively it's wrong. Contradiction

OK, I agree that you've identified at least two contradictions. Typical reaction to this should be to reconsider some of your assertions (not one of which I would assert). Belief in a consistent model is arguably better than belief in a self-contradictory one. I say arguably, because there's potential pragmatic value to holding certain contradictory beliefs, and certain pragmatic value to holding simply wrong beliefs.

Look, where the "You" is placed is a global absolute unique fact to each person.

That statement is also contradictory. If it's person dependent, then it's a subjective fact, not a 'global absolute' one. Perhaps you don't know what those terms mean.

This is derived from the axiom that they exist.

It does not follow from that axiom, should you choose to accept it (most do). As you might gather from my username, I'm somewhat reluctant to accept any axiom without question.

Since the coordinate system is the definition of the world,

Not how you defined it earlier.
'World' typically refers to that which relates to a referent in question. You don't seem to know what a coordinate system is. They're not something that is true or not. It's an arbitrary mathematical abstraction, the origin of which can be place anywhere one finds convenient. So say giving directions to your house relative to anybody's 'here' is probably not very useful.
You seem to use the term to mean more like 'point of view'. That's not what a coordinate system is.

and existence, in my view if something is not on this coordinate system, it means it doesn't exist.

Your not going to find the moon on google maps, but that doesn't mean the moon doesn't exist, it just means a different coordinate system is more appropriate.
Meanwhile, if you know where this posited 'you' is located in your chosen coordinate system, then one can deduce the location of any of the others. It's not hard at all, even if you have no direct access to their experience.

Existence is binary, and the coordinate system is the world, which includes everything that exists.

More assertions that contradict other assertions of yours. Some of it has to be wrong.
Existence being binary doesn't mean it can't be a relation. Non-binary would be something that kind-of exists, but not totally.

There are no different flavours of existence.

I lost count after six. Yours seems to be a mind-dependent relation, something like 'all that is part of my personal world'. Except for your funny (circular) definitions of 'world', that's not a totally unusual definition.
Side effect: Given that definition, you exist by definition, removing the need to make it an axiom.

How do you know a unicorn doesn't exist? Probably because you don't see one. Not part of your world, even if it's part of a different world.

We cannot have conflicting answers to the exact same question. This is the contradiction.

But you're the one giving the contradicting answers, not the rest of us.

"You" is absolute and globally unique.

:lol:

Indeed, a coordinate system is an abstraction and thus can have its origin placed anywhere. My only nit on your post is the 13.5 BLY. Why that? Certainly somebody could place an origin a trillion LY from here without running into problems. Our particular typical assignment of 'here' does not concern any part of the universe that has not dependence on human notice. — noAxioms

True enough. I just went with the known universe.

As you might gather from my username, I'm somewhat reluctant to accept any axiom without question. — noAxioms

With all due respect, I don't see how you can argue with the axiom that you yourself exist. Especially, since everything you know starts with "You".

Perhaps you don't know what those terms mean. — noAxioms

It's intentionally phrased that way to highlight the contradiction

's an arbitrary mathematical abstraction, the origin of which can be place anywhere one finds convenient. — noAxioms

You can place the center anywhere you want. But in your world, the center is where you are. That's the locus point of perception, the "You".

Your not going to find the moon on google maps, but that doesn't mean the moon doesn't exist — noAxioms

If Google maps was defined as the world including everything, then if the moon is not on it, then it doesn't exist.

Non-binary would be something that kind-of exists, but not totally. — noAxioms

What is something that "kinda" exists but not totally? Can you give an example?

Not part of your world, even if it's part of a different world. — noAxioms

In the one and only real world, unicorns only exist as ideas in books or imagination of individual people. They only exist in this form, but not for example physically.

But you're the one giving the contradicting answers, not the rest of us. — noAxioms

Yes, I'm deriving the contradiction.

With all due respect, I don't see how you can argue with the axiom that you yourself exist. — bizso09

I argue with all of them. It's the whole point of open mindedness.
First of all, definitions are not clear at all in you axiom. The usage of 'You' seems to be a separate experiencer of a person, or something that can point to one or another experiencee. Not being a dualist, the existence that sort of 'You' is hardly an axiom.
Then there's 'exists', which is also undefined. As I said, I counted at least 6 kinds, and noAxioms exists respectively: probably no, circular, yes, circular, no, depends. Most people use one of the circular definitions, but don't know they're doing it.

In the one and only real world, unicorns only exist as ideas in books or imagination of individual people.

Especially, since everything you know starts with "You".

You're using the 2nd definition then (E2): Things you know about, a very mind dependent definition. Yes, that's one of the circular ones, true only by definition, thus proving little else if anything.

But in your world, the center is where you are. — bizso09

There are counterexamples where this is not true, BiV being one of them.

If Google maps was defined as the world

It's a coordinate system, not a world. The words mean different things.

What is something that "kinda" exists but not totally? Can you give an example? — bizso09

In MWI, you measure say the spin of a particle at an angle not orthogonal to the prior measurement. This yields say a 10% probability of spin up, and 90% of spin down. Doing so splits the world into one where up is measured, and one with down. There are two worlds, but a 90% chance that 'you' (whatever that means) is in the down one. It implies that the down world sort of exists more than the up one, else half the observers would see each outcome. That's an example of existence that is not just yes/no, but more vs less probable. Of course you don't seem to buy into MWI, but you asked for an example.

It's intentionally phrased that way to highlight the contradiction
...
Yes, I'm deriving the contradiction.

Yet again, driving a set of postulates to contradiction is a standard way of demonstrating that at least one of the postulates is wrong. You hold an inconsistent set of beliefs. Your problem, not ours.

My only nit on your post is the 13.5 BLY. Why that? — noAxioms

True enough. I just went with the known universe. — Patterner

Just some FYI then:

It's called the visible universe, and that radius is about 48 BLY. That's the current distance to the furthest comoving material that may have ever had a causal effect on us (loosely, we can see it).

We can only see about 45 BLY away, which is where the CMBR material currently is. That's totally opaque to visible light, so there's no 'seeing' through it, but other things (gravitational waves, neutrinos, perhaps high energy light) can get through it.

Contrast that with:

The furthest distance from Earth that any light emission can be seen by humans: About 5.8 BLY. Any emission ever from outside that radius cannot have got here yet.

Time for light to reach us from furthest known galaxy: About 13.5 BY.(which is your figure). This is as measured by local comoving clocks, not by any one particular object, nor as measured by the light.
Interestingly, light that we see from that galaxy was emitted only about 0.7 BLY away, not 13.5.

The Hubble radius: Current distance where space is expanding from us at c: About 14 GLY.

The event horizon: Current distance from beyond which light will never reach Earth ever: About 16 GLY.


All distances are proper distances along lines of constant cosmological time.
All times are as measured by local comoving (zero peculiar velocity) clocks, known as cosmological time.

The usage of 'You' seems to be a separate experiencer of a person, or something that can point to one or another experiencee — noAxioms

Yes, it's like a pointer or flag, which is an additional fact. It could point to other experience, but it doesn't, because it only points to one, in the real and only world.

Then there's 'exists', which is also undefined. — noAxioms

Everything that exists comes from the "You". Because if "You" did not exist, then everything would be "undefined" or "NullPointerException" which results in a crash so to speak.

probably no, circular, yes, circular, no, depends — noAxioms

If "You" did not exist, nothing would make sense. See above. Since we are here having a blimey discussion, by definition that means "You" exists.

(E2): Things you know about, — noAxioms

I use E4.5 not "It's part of this universe," but rather "it's part of THE universe"

BiV being one of them. — noAxioms

Then the center would be in the vat, if that's how you're perceiving, and that's the real world. "You" being in a vat doesn't change things.

Things you know about — noAxioms

No, it's not a requirement that I know about it, only that it exists in the same coordinate system, as me, aka it simply exists.

t's a coordinate system, not a world. — noAxioms

Coordinate system in the sense that they can be related to "You" somehow. If something doesn't exist this way, it means they are fundamentally incompatible with "You".

You hold an inconsistent set of beliefs. — noAxioms

They are rational and inconsistent, which is the problem.

In MWI, you measure — noAxioms

There might be many worlds, but there is only one "current" world, where "You" is right now, right here. And not in the indexical sense, but as "the" center.
People argue, there's parallel universes out there, conveniently (but wrongly) ignoring the glaring fact that they themselves are not actually existing in a superstate, but in one actual state.

To be frank, my theory doesn't lead to contradiction, because it only derives that everything exists from "You", which is "me", and everybody is sort of a philiosophical zombie plus, which means they have bodies, minds, experiences, it's just they are not a "center observer", aka "You". The contradiction arises because I make the generous assumption that other people are "You" too, i.e. observers, and they can derive the same argument as me, which according to them would make me a philosophical zombie plus. Since I know that I'm a real "You", not a zombie, this leads to a contradiction.

"You" is a pointer or selector which points to the center of observation. It's only one, because it tells you where the here, now is. People argue that "here and now" is relative to the person asking it, but in the real world it's only relative to yourself, because the REAL "here and now" is always wherever "You" are.

When we imagine other people having a "here and now", i.e. we put ourselves in their shoes, that only exists in our imagination, not in the actual real world. If it did exist in the real world, then that would mean we would be those very people ourselves. Since we're not, it's all hypotheticals.

Thanks for all that! I'll have to look up most of what you're saying to try to figure out what you're saying.

Makes sense to me.