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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

I don't attempt to explain the entire world. I'm just deriving conclusions starting from the fact that I exist.

It's scenarios, but actually the contradiction would arise in the real actual world. The puzzle is good for pinpointing what "You" is.

As it stands, “You is global because it is true in The World” and “This is The World because I am You in it” mutually define one another. — Esse Quam Videri

You are correct stating that "You" and "The World" are interlinked. There is no independent "The World" without "You", and vice versa. The contradiction happens, if you claimed that You is with Esse, not with OP. This would contradict, because "The World" is global. and you would be attempting to link a fact (You is with Esse) to "You", which is already linked (You is with OP).

There is no part of "The World" that exists independently to "You", because everything can be related back to "You" one way or the other. If something did exist independently, that would imply the existence of a disjoint world. I already covered that case before, how this would be impossible, simply via the introduction of an encapsulating world which would again relate back everything to "You".

I think using the term "You" is confusing, so I'd prefer to use the term "Window".

You are interpreting this way, because the "You" term is overloaded, just like "first person perspective". These can mean on the one hand something that is relative to an object in the world, and this concerns the indexical meanings of the terms. On the other hand, "You" and "first person perspective" is also used as a term to denote, "coordinate zero", "Window", "flag", "selection". While the indexical meanings can be use in the relative sense, I'm talking about these terms in the absolute sense. Let me illustrate.

Indexical meaning: Bob says, "I am Bob". Here I refers to the Bob object, and nothing else. It's stating something, relative to the Bob object, while it is Bob making the statement.

Absolute fact meaning: I'm the Window. The Window is at Bob. The Window here refers to "The World", where the observation is occurring, and this coincidentally just happens to be where Bob is, but it could be anywhere else too.

Once you relativize first-person facts to a perspective (“in your reality / in my world”), global absoluteness is gone. — Esse Quam Videri

This is a fair point you raise, my mistake leads to a circular argument! I'm relativizing "You" to "Your World", which defeats the purpose of "You" in the first place. This is wrong. In fact, I should be stating, in The World. To remain consistent, I'm referring to "The world" where the "You" is with OP, not with Esse. It was an exercise in hypotheticals to give you the possibility of having a world where Esse is the You, just so that you can follow my line of logic, and come to the conclusion that "You" is not OP, which would of course contradict to the fact that is happening in "The world". Permitting you to arrive at this conclusion would allow the contradiction to happen, provided that I accept it as honest truth.

I admit that I mix it up sometimes, "Your world" or "The world". In reality, I can only refer to "The World" and nothing else, because that's the only world I know, and which I can derive from the fact that I exist as "You" in "The World". There is no other worlds to speak of. This is how the global unique nature of "You" emerges.

The are multiple coordinate zeros in regards to cosmology. — Patterner

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? I know about quantum superstates, and wave function collapse, but I don't think this explains the "You".

This deals with the physical world and its workings. I also include subjective experiences in this realm, although they are traditionally not part of the objective reality. What I'm concerned about is this "You", which is just a pointer or selection. But it has information content, hence a fact. It's like a flag or label you plant somewhere.

If I was both Alice and Bob, then it is Scenario 3, you're talking about. The point I want to state is that I want to affirm the existence of this fact called "You", which some people deny. The contradiction arises when someone else claims to be "You", when in fact they are not, and assuming they are honest. I'm also asserting that there is no You1, You2, etc, but only a single global "You".

I see you are talking about relatives, meaning things are relational to one another. However, I argue that in the world, the You is an absolute global unique fact. It's coordinate zero so to speak. There are no multiple coordinate zeros, unless there are multiple disjoint worlds, at which point one of the worlds would become the true coordinate zero again.

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.

Whether it is a fact or not of the world is very simple. I exist as Me. Everything is viewed from my perspective. This happens to be at a location of OP. If this was not a fact, then OP might still write his things, but of course I would be dead. OP would be nothing more but a mere philosophical zombie plus, who has a body, thoughts, experiences, but it's actually just an object of reality. What he doesn't have is the current centre of perception that is being experienced right now, by virtue of me existing.

Of course, how can I prove this to you, that this "You" I'm talking about exists. I know it for sure, since I know I'm here. That's enough for me. But how can I prove it to you? I can't. Because this fact is not something that is objectively visible. You don't have access to the fact that I am OP, and OP is not just a philosophical zombie acting as if he was me. Even if he might have his own experience, how could I prove that that experience is actually "Mine", and not some random experience of some "Other" person. I cannot. The fact that it's "Mine" experience, concern an additional fact of the world, that only I have access to, but which is nonetheless global unique and absolute in the world I live in.

My argument hinges on the assumption, that you the Reader, could similarly derive the existence of your own very "Mine" fact, by virtue of you existing. Then if I assume that you are honest, and not lying, this would lead to a contradiction in the world. Your "Mine" and my "Mine" both concern first person view points, which is singular by definition, and cannot coexist simultaneously. On the other hand, if I assume that you are lying, or you are denying the existence of "Mine" for yourself, then you are admitting that you are a philosophical zombie plus, but at the same time you are resolving the contradiction this way.

The inference “if another perspective were first-person, it would be You” is invalid; it confuses token uniqueness with category membership. Other perspectives are not You, but that does not make them third-person simpliciter. — Esse Quam Videri

Your mistake is that you are abstracting away the world, rather than seeing it exactly as it is. In your reality, indeed other perspectives are not first person, apart from yours only. In fact, in my world, your perspective is not even first, because only mine is. Therefore, our worlds are mutually exclusive.

If we are nitpicking about grammar, then let me also be very precise. I mean first person, and I stand by the literal definition of the words. Somebody else's perspective is literally a third person. It is important to get this clear, because the fact that which perspective is the one we refer to as first person, is exactly the problem that "You" identifies and solves, and which is contained in the fact that "You" can always tell unequivocally who you are, which is not a trivial matter.

When you say that I am ME, and ME refers to Alice, or ME refers to Bob, or ME refers to Esse, is a non-trivial fact of the world that must be accounted for, notwithstanding the fact that the words are coming out of Esse's mouth, which is a corollary, but not an antecedent.

In my view, reducing the issue to mere play of words, ignores a fundamental fact of reality, which is that you are observing the world as a "You". It is true that ignoring such a fact helps us, as human species, survive, since it makes the assumption the others are just like us, and it is the socially accepted theory of the world. After all, we expect cooperation from others, and we use our model of others to try to influence them for our benefit. Therefore, it is natural to assume that others are likewise a "You". However, this train of thought unfortunately contains a logical jump in thinking, which is an error.

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? — bizso09

I can include two more Scenarios:
Scenario 3: You are Alice, Bob, Cecil, Dan all at the same time. You are simultaneously experiencing the world through all these vantage points.
Scenario 4: You do not exist. Alice, Bob, Cecil, Dan are all in the world, but You are not there to see it.

I assume that in your argument, all four Scenarios are meaningless and identical. As a side, your argument is what a theoretical philosophical Zombie plus may say, who has no access to the "Window", because to them indeed all four Scenarios are the exact same, and there is no way to transfer them to knowledge of the proof of the "You", since this fact is objectively non-transferable, but nevertheless holds true to a person who has access to it.

Thanks for linking your post. Indeed, you touch upon a very similar issue I describe here, and I don't have a solution either. However, in my post, I try to take it further, and attempt to prove the existence of a logical contradiction, just by starting from the axiom that "I exist". This allows us to learn a "useful" feature of the world we live in, that it is self contradictory.

I think this nicely illustrates why we should not uncritically accept the output of LLMs — Esse Quam Videri

As SolarWind posted his thesis 5 years ago, I had been thinking about this issue also way before that. Here I used LLMs as a tool to help formalize the thesis.

There are two points. First you need to accept that You is singular. Second, that You is absolute.

"I am Esse" is not the same statement as "You" is Esse. The first one merely states a tautology, which is self evident. In fact, the it is Esse saying that "I am Esse", is is logically equivalent to saying that "Esse is Esse". Of course such a statement can coexist without contradiction with a statement such as "OP is OP.

However, when you say "You" is Esse, this statement concerns an absolute fact. It states that reality is being observed through a "Window" of first person perspective, that is all encompassing. In fact, the world as we know, necessarily must include such a "You", because in your experience, the world exists in relation to "You", not just existing out there by itself. This point of reference of existence is what I call "You", and it is a fact by itself.

Indeed, because of the fact, that you can unequivocally tell who you are, it follows that this "You" perspective is unique and global, because when you talk about "Other" first person perspectives, you are in fact making a false logical deductive reasoning error, because in your world those "Other" perspectives are not truly first person, because if they were, then by definition, they would be You. A third person perspective is materially different from a first person perspective in your world. Since you can unequivocally tell who you are, which means you are not "Other"s, it strictly follows, that those perspectives you are talking about are not You, and hence You is both global and unique.

“You” is token-indexical, not an absolute global fact, — Esse Quam Videri

In the world that you live in, "You" is indeed an absolute global fact. Wouldn't you agree that you can unequivocally tell who the "You" is? Ask yourself honestly, how many first person perspectives there are, apart from yours. In fact, other perspectives are not first person in your world. "You" refers to the one unique global first person perspective, that I assume you'd claim is called Esse. Your only escape for permitting other "You"s to exist is the introduction of multiple distinct worlds, each containing a separate "You" that are local in that world only. I say local, because these collection of worlds would need to be included in an encapsulating world, and within that world we can always ask which one of the sub worlds "You" are currently in when typing your response out right now, and you will always get a single unambiguous answer to this question, due to the fact that you aware of who "You" actually are.

The contradiction comes the fact that when you claim "You" to be Esse, I claim "You" to be OP, and provided that we are both correct, this leads to a contradiction. Since I have proof that I am OP, and not Esse, and also proof that I am "You", which is derived from my very existence itself, I have proof that you claiming that "You" is Esse is false. In this setting, Esse is a philosophical zombie plus, who has their own experiences, thoughts, feelings, but nonetheless do not possess a "You", because if they did, it would lead to contradiction of global absolute facts. My solution to this paradox is that the world is more complex than what the framework of logic can accommodate.

p.s. maybe the term "You" is overloaded here, so better call it Window or coordinate.

p.p.s. if you want, you can flip the above argument, and call me the philosophical zombie plus instead, in case you assert that "You" is Esse. The point I'm trying to show is that this indexical is a global absolute fact.

Why is it a false statement to say that there is a difference in state of the world between being Alice and being Bob, even though Alice's and Bob's experiences remain unchanged. The fact of which being I am is a fact in itself. If we argued this wasn't the case, you fail to account for You. We could even say that You could be all four subjects, or none of them, and it wouldn't make a difference.

On the one hand, there is a huge difference, since Your perception of the world is not the same. — bizso09

On the other hand, there is absolutely no difference between the two scenarios. — bizso09

You seem to be arguing for the second statement in the original post, while ignoring the first statement. This is the crux of the contradiction.

please look at the gemini link I posted in the original post, and tell me whether there is a confusion of meaning.

The puzzle contains a total description of the world, which includes both indexical and non-indexical facts about it. In fact, I argue that the You is an objective fact of the world which is unique absolute and global, even though it appears to be indexical at first sight.

No, it's not a fifth person. It is merely a reference point, or pointer, i.e. a window of first person perspective. It is not a physical being, soul or spirit, but merely just an additional fact of the world. The physical beings are the four people listed in the puzzle, along with their respective experiences.

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. It is not physical, but it is an additional fact included in the world.

Yes, you are correct. There is a difference between Alice and being Alice. The puzzle attempts to identify what this difference is. On the one hand it claims, that this difference is something, but on the other, that it is in fact nothing.

Here I try to derive the logical contradiction which arises from the puzzle.

1. In both scenarios we have a "You". I argue that this "You" is a necessary truth, because without it, we wouldn't even be able to ask the question. There must be a "You" to even ask the question and draw inferences. Therefore, it makes no sense to talk about Scenario 1 or Scenario 2, without including You in it. In our current world, therefore, there must be at least one You, because I'm typing this out as me.

2. In this world, there is only a single global "You". That is because there is only one first person perspective, others are only third person perspectives. Anyone else claiming to be "You" is wrong, because the true "You" has proof that the others are in fact "not You", though it cannot share this proof objectively with anyone else. For example, in Scenario 1, You are Alice, and not Bob, therefore you can prove this fact to yourself, even though you cannot share this proof with Bob objectively.

3. If we entertained the possibility that both Alice and Bob are a You, but in different worlds, this logic falls apart. That is because we would need to introduce an encapsulating world to contain these sub worlds, and in it, we would need to select which one contains the true You. In other words, if we allowed both Scenario 1 and 2 to hold simultaneously, we can always ask ourselves, whether we are in fact Alice or Bob right now, which would give us an unambiguous answer about which sub world is the correct one.

4. Because of 1, which shows the existence of You, and 2., which shows that this You is single, and 3., which shows that this You is absolute global, anyone else claiming to be You leads to a contradiction. If we apply this to our world at large, since I OP is already claiming to be You, and I have proof of this, the Reader cannot claim a You. In case the Reader has also proof of them being a You, it leads to a necessary contradiction of facts.

Let me illustrate the contradictory nature of this koan.

As per previous suggestions, let's say we add Jane to the room. In addition, let's define I as the centre of perception, or what's playing on the security guy's screen.(1) Let's define the world as a collection of all true facts.(2)

a) From my point of view, in the first scenario, the statement I am Jane evaluates to false, I am Peter evaluates to true, I am Alexa evaluates to false.
b) From my point of view, in the second scenario, the statement I am Jane evaluates to false, I am Peter evaluates to false, I am Alexa evaluates to true.
c) From your point of view, in the first scenario, the statement I am Jane evaluates to true, I am Peter evaluates to false, I am Alexa evaluates to false.
d) From your point of view, in the second scenario, the statement I am Jane evaluates to true, I am Peter evaluates to false, I am Alexa evaluates to false.

There is one world in existence because facts are either true or false, and there is one collection of true facts. The question is, which world is true?

In the first scenario, from my and your points of view, statements a) and c) contradict.
In the second scenario, from my and your points of view, statements b) and d) contradict.
In the first and second scenarios, from my point of view, statements a) and b) contradict.
In the first and second scenarios, from your point of view, statements c) and d) match.

Given this, we find it impossible to construct a world that is true in any given scenario from all points of view.

Resolution: In general, one way to resolve this would be to discard all points of view, but one. In that case, the correct world could be inferred from simple observation of one’s own centre of perception. However, this resolution may imply solipsism, with which other points of view may disagree.

it looks like you're incapable of forming a coherent argument other than to state that it's all nonsense without any support. I guess case is closed. I'm happy for you to feel superior in your condescending attitude without any constructive discussion, no matter how many imaginary forum rank points you have. Posting here on this forum is useless with people like you contributing negative value. Good luck. I guess should have taken your name literally. Arguing with you over philosophy is like watching the Presidential debate. So if you excuse me, I turn off the TV now.

There we have it. Authentic nonsense on stilts. — unenlightened

Care to explain, or just saying it's nonsense? How about forming an argument? I can also just say, you're stupid, and that's the end of my argument.

The "Who" is a "What", because it exists. If it wasn't a What, then what is it? In fact, the Who is Me. It is not my thoughts or perception but the Fact that one particular thought or perception is selected to be observed. The Who is merely a Selection, but it is as real as any "stuff", because it's everything that's Me.

Now you're getting it. The You is a subjective subjectivity. It is not an objective subjectivity. And you can think it through, that there can only be a single subjective subjectivity in the entire world, because if there was another subjective subjectivity, then the first subjective subjectivity would become an objective subjectivity from the second subjective subjectivity's point of view. Therefore, how could both you and I have different subjective subjectivities?

But you don't need to go two levels deep. You can just simply state that a subjectivity is not really a subjectivity if it is observed by another subjectivity, because then in fact it is objective. Now, people may say there are multiple subjectivities that are inaccessible to each other, but that's false, because what differentiates a subjectivity from an objectivity is purely the fact that is defines a point of view. There cannot be multiple subjectivities, because any differentiator between two subjectivities would necessarily have to be objective, which is NOT part of any one subjectivity. Hence, the two subjectivities would be necessarily indistinguishable from each other, meaning that they are in fact the SAME. As such, there is only really a single subjectivity.

Now, the most controversial part of this thinking is that, I know that I have one subjectivity, since I observe, and since there cannot be other subjectivities, that means I am unique in being an observer in the entire world. You can easily falsify this claim, by saying that you have a subjectivity too, but this then would imply that I don't have one, which leads to a pure contradiction.

Dear people who replied. It appears to me that most people have not understood the question properly. It would be important to understand it because it leads to a direct contradiction about the self and the world. That means, all of us live in a provably contradictory reality. The only way to resolve the situation is to assume a singular "You", which directly means that "Other" do not exist. The goal of this discussion is to point out how Others can exist without creating a contradiction.

Replying to individual posts below:

You is a pointer, but the problem with Others is that the pointer must be exactly the same. Because the pointer is actually just the fact of having a pointer. Do you see?

I understand your argument about relations. However, in your world view, you describe relations objectively. But reality is subjective. You can still ask why are you this relation rather than other relation. Why the You is selected to be one of the relations.

The main issue is that "You" is a relation to describe "being observed from first person perspective". In case Others exist, that they would be the exact same relation "being observed from a first person perspective". The issue is about concept and entities. Two entities cannot be the exact same concept, because then they would be identical, but our presupposition is that Others are not You. This is a contradiction. Since You is the relation of "first person perspective" there is nothing else to distinguish You and Others, they are identical. All other parts of the relation, i.e. spatial orientation, particles, thoughts, are not part of You relation. In fact, You is both a relation and an entity, which is again contradictory. Do you see the problem?

Yes, the You can be called a Me. Is just semantics. The question is, if there's just stuff, then how can there be a selection? The fact is selection is not a stuff, but it still exists. So either, selection itself is a stuff, or Me doesn't exist. I know Me exists, because I am here.

A plurality of Me’s implies multiple singularities

This is a contradiction, because singularity is single, it's not plural. The problem is Me is a singularity, but there is only one of it, precisely because it's a singularity. So how can there be Others?

“what tells you which one You...” makes no sense;

It does make sense, because it is an undeniable fact that when I'm observing the world, I'm doing from person C not from person A's point of view. That fact has to be determined somewhere.

In all the descriptions I've read in the replies, there's no distinction between worlds where I am person C, or I'm person A, or I don't exist (but person C does). This is False and it's missing the whole point.

There can be no “complete description of the world”

How about, I'm just trying to explain the You? According to the logic so far, You cannot be explained and it doesn't in fact exist, which is curious, since I'm here right now.

My only requirement is that things exist or they don't exist. I exist, but according to all these philosophies, I shouldn't exist. Don't you think there's a problem? When you talk about experience and private I, does that exist or not exist? If it does not exist, then are you talking about nothing? If you're saying that the "private I" is not scientifically present in the world, then that means I should not be able to tell that I am one of the people, which can be clearly verified to be false, since I can tell right now who I am. The "private I" is scientifically verifiable to exist to me, due to the fact that I exist at all. If the "private I" didn't exist then person C would still exist and have their own mind, they just wouldn't be me.

Yes, "You" is the "X" in algebra. But the question is, how can X take on simultaneous values at the same time? X=1 and X=2 and X=3 are all true, but then 1/=2/=3 which is contradiction. It seems you understood the question the best so far.

If you don't think a witness exists, then what are You? Are you not witnessing? The key question is not whether or not a witness exists, but how can multiple witnesses co-exist, when the only distinction between witness 1 and witness 2 are that they are both The witness, meaning there's actually no distinction between them.

I think it's very interesting to talk about what stuff actually is. To me it looks like the Witness and stuff and the world are interlinked, in that there's no stuff without Witness and vice versa. Claiming that stuff exist without Witness is impossible because any claim can only be made by the Witness.

So maybe the 'you' is largely a point of view on the world. — EnPassant

That's correct, but it's the 'you' that's supposed to tell me which perspective I am.

That's very interesting that each time an event is created, information is lost while passing down to our universe. However, I argue that in this external universe, information cannot be reasoned about using our conventional techniques as events in that space are "brute facts without explanation". You cannot apply the framework of logic. Interestingly, we can deduce this fact using logic from within our universe PU, because our universe interacts with the external universe (EU).

The question of identity assignment is one such problem that is not possible to answer using a logical framework. The question is that one day I wake up in the world, and I became conscious. There needs to be some information in the world that determines my identity, namely who or what I am. Even if this identity reduces to merely a given first person perspective or point of view, that needs to be determined where or what that point of view is in the world. However, this determination, although exists, it cannot be explained logically.

The problem is there must be a unique information content specifically for me in the world. However, as soon as there’s more options available, i.e. there exists multiple first person perspectives, the assignment problem becomes ambiguous, and hence the information specifying my identity becomes ambiguous too.

One possible resolution is that each conscious being lives in their own unique world that was made just for them. In that case their identity is equal to the universe, i.e. everything that exists, so the mapping is unambiguous. However, as soon as multiple parallel universes can exist with multiple conscious beings, the identity assignment problem resurfaces, but this time across multiple universes.

This problem is not possible to be solved using a logical framework. When I ask, how come I am this particular being, there’s two solutions: Either I am the only being in existence, or that there is no “but”, it’s just how it is.

Although choosing the first option might look attractive, it still doesn’t explain that although it is only me that exists, how come I exist at all? So in fact, this would require another illogical statement, namely everything exists, just because. So in a way, assuming the existence of an external universe that provides the necessary information required to resolve these issues and remain consistent within our universe, is itself unavoidable. This external universe has to give the answers without further question, and asking about a piece of information coming from this external universe as to how come it’s that way and not the other way, would not be sensible.

The question of identity assignment is not possible to answer using a logical framework. The question is that one day I wake up in the world, and I became conscious. There needs to be some information in the world that determines my identity, namely who or what I am. Even if this identity reduces to merely a given first person perspective or point of view, that needs to be determined where or what that point of view is in the world. However, this determination, although exists, it cannot be explained logically.

The problem is there must be a unique information content specifically for me in the world. However, as soon as there’s more options available, i.e. there exists multiple first person perspectives, the assignment problem becomes ambiguous, and hence the information specifying my identity becomes ambiguous too.

One possible resolution is that each conscious being lives in their own unique world that was made just for them. In that case their identity is equal to the universe, i.e. everything that exists, so the mapping is unambiguous. However, as soon as multiple parallel universes can exist with multiple conscious beings, the identity assignment problem resurfaces, but this time across multiple universes.

This problem is not possible to be solved using a logical framework. When I ask, how come I am this particular being, there’s two solutions: Either I am the only being in existence, or that there is no “but”, it’s just how it is.

Although choosing the first option might look attractive, it still doesn’t explain that although it is only me that exists, how come I exist at all? So in fact, this would require another illogical statement, namely everything exists, just because. So in a way, assuming the existence of an external universe that provides the necessary information required to resolve these issues and remain consistent within our universe, is itself unavoidable. This external universe has to give the answers without further question, and asking about a piece of information coming from this external universe as to how come it’s that way and not the other way, would not be sensible.