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.

The asymmetry arises as soon as the banana becomes this banana. Consciousness has nothing to do with it. — SophistiCat

But, once this robot checks the dark corner, it has acquired a (new) piece of information that makes a difference (to this robot), "I'm in room δ", and it can then go on about its business. — jorndoe

That's correct. "this" implies an injection of information into the system, the source of which can be traced back to a separate entity, in this case @SophistiCat or @jorndoe, who made the selection. The information can be traced further by asking these people how they made the selection for "this". Similarly, when I say "mine", information is injected as a selection is made, but I can't trace the source of such information in the universe.

Everything is equal to "mine" - contradiction
"mine" cannot refer to all conscious beings, and the universe, because we still need to account for the information that selects one particular point of view that's mine. So assuming that everybody is somehow part of the same "ONE" is not the answer. This is the case of maximum entropy.

bizso09 is equal to "mine" - possible
The only way it could be the answer is if I, bizso09, assert that the ONE universe is in fact me, bizso09. However, this would lead to a contradiction, when another person makes the same assertion from their point of view, i.e. perterpan is equal to "mine". Of course, I can always discredit any such person's assertion, leading to solipsism. This is the case of minimum entropy.

Nothing is equal to "mine" - contradiction
Finally, if we discard the information content of "mine" selection, then we are left with no selection of identity, and hence non-existence. On the other hand, such a state of the world would be incompatible with the subjective first person view I'm experiencing now where I know that such a selection exists ipso facto. This is the case of no entropy.

As an alternative to resorting to solipsism being necessarily true, I introduce the concept of an external universe here that can specify the source of any such information. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8371/existence-of-an-external-universe-to-the-physical-universe

I believe information is fundamental element. It interacts with the physical. Example:

> Tell someone to go to the door. They will listen and go there.

In this case, there was an interaction between Object 1 and Object 2, a cause and effect. However, Object 1 didn't apply traditional force on Object 2, for example, didn't push them, or didn't use magnets, electro magnetic force, or even gravity. It's also fair to assume that sound waves do not have sufficient force to push someone aside.

So what caused Object 2 to move? It is information. Object 2 has a topology of information landscape where they are being pushed around by mental forces of the universe. Information packets alter this topology which alters the force trajectories in the mental pane. This in turn, has an effect on the physical world, which manifests in Object 2 going to the door.

Does this mean information requires a mental force field to work? Not necessary. Information can also encode the arrangement of stuff. The fact that our world is one of all possible worlds out there is determined by information.

By gap between mental and physical, I meant an aspect of physical which we cannot detect easily.

but they want you to explain your position that intelligence is a component of the universe. — schopenhauer1

Intelligence must be a component of the universe because 1) intelligence exists 2) there is nothing apart from the universe.

They way I see it is intelligence is created out of the pattern and arrangement of particles. The whole is literally greater than the sum of its parts. It's like magic: If you put 3 apples together in a circle then an additional pear will appear in the middle.

There can also be additional forces and dimensions in the universe that we cannot detect easily. Right now, the brain is one such device which bridges the gap between mental and physical. But you could possibly also build some kind of sensor that can pick up on mental energy. Elementary particles may have a mental energy field around them which is not easy to see without sufficiently advanced tools.

Have you considered the idea that there is no such information? — jkg20

Having no such information would entail me existing in some kind of weird superposition of all 3 choices. Like being God, Peter and bizso09 at the same time. Or me not existing at all, in which case I have no idea who's writing this message right now. It's some dude called Biz, but that's about it, and I have no clue what he's on about. In fact, I don't even know what's happening since apparently I don't even exist?!

You can either take the Me for granted, but then you admit that your reality is the only possible world out there. Or you can assume an outside world, but then you need to account for the Me in it. What doesn't work is assuming an outside world and ignoring the Me, in which case you literally have no way to explain why you're seeing the FPP of the person that you are.

There is a distinction between ability based knowledge and factual knowledge, — jkg20

Ability or factual knowledge are just different encodings of information, but the information exists in both cases. Information in this case is like entropy and it should collapse uncertainty.

In my view, the whole thing, the world, and the perspective, just spontaneously jumps into existence out of nothing. I don't know how I got here, all I know is that I'm here, and everything else is. In addition, observation doesn't bring objects into existence. It's more like everything happens together.

If you conflate "me" and "you" and call it "me" you can put together some kind of argument for solipsism. But it's a simple - not to mention outlandish - mistake. It's obviously forced and sophistic. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I never conflated "me" and "you". Every statement correctly describes the world in its own right. It is impossible to make a statement without including who made that statement. No matter what I do, I cannot abstract myself away. Let me correct that for you, so it's accurate from your perspective:

In a world, there is one Me
In a world, Me is ZzzoneiroCosm,
In a world, there is one Biz,
In a world, there is one Echarmion

Even this is incorrect, because ultimately, I for a fact know that Me is Biz and not ZzzoneiroCosm. And while I'm reading all these statements on this forum, the Me has not jumped to Zzz or Ech. However, I'm unable to prove or communicate this, because in the physical world, nothing would have changed even if the Me had jumped. The Me is a non-physical entity that exists in the world. So the next best thing I can do is for you to derive the argument as if the Me was the person you are...

If you conflate "subjectivity" and "objectivity", and call it "objectivity" you can put together some kind of argument for realism. But it's a simple - not to mention outlandish - mistake. It's obviously forced and sophistic.

I don't disagree with this, but my lack of knowledge does not imply absence of these other FFP. — Echarmion

Observation is not lack of knowledge. It's the possibility of any information flow whatsoever. Here's some more:

You say:

K. There is one Me
L. In a world, Me is one of FPPs.
M. Hence in a world, Me is FPP_1

I say,

37. In a world, there is one Me
38. In a world, Me is one of FPPs
39. Hence, in a world, Me is FPP_2

40. In a world, FPP_1 and FPP_2 are two distinct FPPs
41. Hence, in a world, both FPP_1 and FPP_2 are Me

It is clear to see that 40. contradicts with 41. There are a few possible ways to resolve this, but each of them leads to further contradictions:

42.a. FPP_1 and FPP_2 are the same
42.b. In a world, Me does not exist.
42.c. In a world, there are multiple Me.
42.d. FPP_1 and FPP_2 are in two distinct worlds

42.a is incorrect because Me has access to the FPP of bizso09 but not to that of Echarmion.
42.b is incorrect because Me has access to the FPP of bizso09. If Me did not exist, Me would have no access to this FPP.
42.c is incorrect, because Me is by definition singular.
42.d is incorrect because there is one world that includes everything in existence.

This leads us back to the point where

43. In a world, there is only one FPP. [10.]

The puzzle some people see in de se reasoning is, on the one hand it seems that I have uncovered some substantive information when I discover that I am Peter, but on the other it is difficult to say anything more about what I have discovered other than that, quite simply, I am Peter. — jkg20

That's totally correct. However, I'd say the difference is 1) I am a neutral God, narrating that "Peter wants to get elected" or 2) I am Peter and I want to get elected or 3) I am this person typing now and noting that "Peter wants to get elected". I know that the correct choice is 3), but with respect to the objective reality, there is no difference between 1) 2) or 3). So where does the information come from to select 3)?

If being observed is a requirement for existing, what observes that unique first person perspective? — Daniel

It observes itself. The reference point is like a coordinate system for existence. As an exercise, ask yourself how you know that you are you. Well, you do, because you simply are.

Reasoning purely de se therefore involves a contradiction... — Banno

Ultimately, all reasoning is de se. Even for the de re sentence "Peter wants to get elected", the complete sentence is "I believe that Peter wants to get elected". A lot of language, when objectively describing the world, removes the "I", which is a mistake.

Well, to be honest, I think nobody really knows how the world works, so if you're honest with yourself, you can admit it too.

Let's go back to the original framework:

You say

G. In a world, there is a distinct FPP that is not me.
H. Every statement is made by me.
I. G is a statement about distinct FPP.
J. Hence, me makes a statement about a distinct FPP.

I say,

31. To view something, is to form a minimal connection with something.
32. Hence, to make a statement about a thing, then has to view that thing.
33. In a world, me has to view something to make a statement about that thing.

34. In a world, me is one of FPP [D.]
35. In a world, an FPP cannot view other distinct FPP.
36. In a world, me cannot make a statement about other distinct FPP.

36 leads to contradiction with J. In particular, what was missing before is H.

Here's another way to prove it.

I say:

1. There is one me.
2. You are not me.
3. Me only makes statements by numbers.

You say:

A. There is one me.
B. You are not me.
C. Me only makes statements by alphabet.

All statements are True, but C and 3 contradict.

And again, there is one significant problem, as I see it, your view runs into. If the only relation in the world is to me, then why do I not start out omniscient and omnipotent? Why do I experience a "perspective" if I am not really looking "at" anything at all? — Echarmion

That's a good question, and I don't know. It's just how it is I guess. I don't attempt to answer why everything, including me, exist at all, or why things exist the way they do. My hypothesis is that things just pop into existence out of literally nothing (the void?), until they pop out. Nevertheless, I still attempt to reason about stuff, however futile or random it may seem. I know there is no point, but what else am I supposed to do, while I "am"?

Yeah but is it the reference point? — Echarmion

Another thing to mention is that FPP by construction is supposed to be singular. I am not able to imagine a world from a neutral "God's eye point of view". Whatever world I can possibly think of can only be observed from FPP, and as such, I use that for the reference point.

Based on evidence I have available to me, if I had to choose between a world existing in some kind of objective neutral form, and a world where there must be a single FPP observer, my world being like that I would ipso facto choose the latter.

Also, if something cannot be related to you in a world, there would be absolutely no difference between that thing existing or not existing from your perspective.

The reason is because FPP is just a reference point. A better word for observing would be "relating". If two things cannot be related to one another in any way, I don't see how they could possibly exist in the same world. If two things are completely unrelated, then they must be in different worlds. Relation implies some form of connection.

Also, what you're referring to as other FPPs in your world are in fact TPPs and can be related to you. In addition, we agreed that FPPs and TPPs are not equal to each other in any possible world.

No idea where you get C from. It's not anything I said and you haven't provided an argument for it. — Echarmion

Great. Then we agree on 16.

So you say.

E. In a world, an FPP cannot view something.
F. In a world, an FPP cannot view another distinct FPP.

I say

24. If an FPP cannot view something, then they are in different distinct worlds.
25. Hence, in a world, an FPP can view everything [18.]

26. In a world, an FPP can view itself.
27. In a world, if an FPP views another FPP, then they are the same [21.]
28. In a world, an FPP cannot view another distinct FPP. [F.]

29. Hence, in a world, there is only one FPP. [10.]
30. Hence, multiple distinct FPPs are in multiple distinct worlds [23.]

Obviously I don't accept 10 if I didn't accept 9. Because 10 is the conclusion that follows from 9, and without 9, there is no 10. WTF... — Echarmion

Ok, so you say

A. In a world, me is one of FPPs.
B. In a world, there are multiple FPPs that are distinct.
C. In a world, FPPs and TPPs are the same.
D. Hence, in a world me is one of TPPs

D. is clearly False. Are you a third person perspective in your world?

I say

16. In a world, FPPs and TPPs are not the same [12.]

17. In a world, there has to be at least one FPP.
18. In a world, everything can be viewed from an FPP.
19. In a world, there is nothing outside of everything [2.]

20. In a world, if a FPP views another TPP, they are not the same.
21. In a world, if a FPP views another FPP, they are the same.
22. Hence, in a world all FPPs are the same [13.]

23. If there are multiple distinct FPPs, then there are multiple distinct worlds [14.]

13. doesn't follow from either 11. or 12. nor from any other part of the argument. It also contradicts 10 — Echarmion

13. follows from 10. Given that in a world there is only one FPP, if there are multiple FPPs in that world, then they are all the same FPP.

9. I don't accept without further argument. Me is not the same as FPP. Me is an example of a FPP. — Echarmion

That's ok, 9. is actually not needed for 15., if you accept 10. which states that in any given world, there is one FPP in that world. Note, this still permits other worlds having their own FPPs, in 14.

Empire building by itself is not a problem I think. Many would agree that living in the Roman Empire was more prosperous than living in some germanic tribe. The USA is also an empire of its states, but people are quite happy there. Soviet Union with its communism was quite misguided...

There are some corrupt elements to the EU, such as the CAP subsidy system favouring large landowners, such as the Queen and Saudi sheikhs, and the lack of auditing of financials, which I think is a pretty huge problem. They also appoint the commissioner rather than go with the Spitzenkanidate, which is a true disrespect to democracy.

However, in my opinion, the goal should be reform, not disintegration. The UK will be ruled by the elite hiding in their "non-UK" offshore jurisdictions even more than before, and there will be no EU counterweight to protect everyday people. So certain elites will benefit a lot.

The middle class in the UK will be clearly at a disadvantage, as I'd argue they were one of the big beneficiaries of EU membership.

The lower class will benefit too, but only in the short term. If they were non-competitive with EU workers, the right solution would be to increase competitiveness and learn a new skill, and not to resort to isolationism and protectionism. As the former will increase overall wealth much more than the latter. So it's only a short term win for them.

People group into larger organisation when they can derive some benefit from it. The benefit of cooperation must be greater than the benefit of defection.

There is no reason why people shouldn't be lone wolfs roaming the world on their own. They can organise into tribes, villages, cities, countries and federations.

It's also about power balance. During the second world war, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China were at war with each other. Then when the Japanese attacked, all of a sudden they united and cooperated under a single China. Then when the Japanese left, they went back to war.

You can bet that if aliens showed up tomorrow, then all of sudden a one world government would form for defense.

You can agree or disagree with the UK leaving the EU, but it's a bet they made and only the future will tell if it's the right one. Also, within every single country there's many people, and the policy is determined as an interplay of all the interests and agenda individual people have. So naturally, for every decision there are losers and winners.

Decisions are the outcome of local optima in a single group. The more small groups you have, the higher likelihood it is that they will reach a local optimum different from a global optimum. Even if the global optimum would result in higher utility overall than the sum of various local optima.

My bet is that the UK will become something like Singapore with Scotland and Ireland breaking off. They will thrive by subverting EU regulations, just like Singapore thrives by subverting Chinese regulations.

Please tell me the line number that is incorrect.

FPP: first person perspective
TPP: third person perspective

1. A world includes everything there is.
2. There is nothing outside of everything.
3. Hence a world is everything.

4. Everything is the same as existence.
5. Hence, a world is the same as existence.
6. There is one existence.
7. Hence there is one world.

8. In any world, there is one me.
9. In any world, me is the same as FPP.
10. Hence, in any world, there is one FPP.

11. In any world, there can be multiple TPPs.
12. In any world, FPP is not equal to any TPP.
13. Hence, in any world if there are multiple FPPs, then they are the same.

14. If there are multiple FPPs then there are multiple worlds.
15. But there is only one world, so one FPP.

There is one objective world, on which there are multiple perspectives, which create smaller subjective worlds. — Echarmion

This does not explain how one of the subjective worlds becomes me. You say there's a world with multiple TPPs. Where does the FPP come in?

Things not inside your FPP don't exist for you. — Echarmion

Things can only exist in a FPP, and not outside, because FPP defines existence. These things don't have to be knowable, but they must be observable.

This actually follows logically from assuming there is a "perspective" on the first place — Echarmion

Yes, but these two things are equivalent, because for something to exist, it is observed and vice versa.

Your last sentence is correct. The one before it isn't. — Echarmion

Ok, let's be objective. Given I don't exist, what can I say about the world. Hmmm.... nothing?

The main issue lies in the statement that there are multiple FPPs, but each FPP actually must include everything. There is no such thing as something that exists in one FPP, but not another FPPs, because this is akin to saying that object X exists and it does not exist, since FPP defines existence. This leads to a contradiction. It's easy to follow how this implies that there's only one FPP.

Okay, take 3.

There is nothing unique about an objective world. There are things in it. Now add subjectivity. Still nothing unique, many subjective experiences. Now select one of the subjective experiences to be me. Now that subjective experience is unique, because it's me.

The me in this case is merely the first person perspective (FPP). Nothing else, not the body, not the mind. Now when you say you have a FPP too, that means there are multiple FPPs. But if there are multiple, they are actually the same, because one FPP is still a FPP, as it's observed from the same place. If I regard your FPP actually a third person perspective (TPP), then in my world those two things are different.

If there were genuinely multiple FPPs, that would require multiple worlds that are completely disjoint. But since there is only one world with everything inside it, how can this be? That would mean that my FPP cannot observe that world at all. But since FPP is just a relation with respect to which things can exist, how could something exist and not be inside my FPP? Anything outside of my FPP cannot possibly exist for me.