Why am I me?

[lucent]

Otherwise, may we return to the discussion at hand, which is about subjectivity?

Your original reply to me addressed all of these topics, and those were the terms under which we began our conversation. It is unfair for you to cherry pick 3 sentences out of my reply and brush off the rest, when you are the one who raised these questions to begin with. I'll address your reply anyway.

Thermodynamics explains this very self-ordering through a combination of entropy growth, energy transfer, and electrostatics/gravity.

Which violates the 2nd laws of thermodynamics, by saying you are going from the initial explosion to a self-organized more highly ordered and complex state.

You can't have a background system. A background is anything that interacts with/knows all other systems. As I have said, you cannot have a background and a subjective universe. Calling the background God is just as useful as calling the background 'toro's magic school bus': it's still a background. Calling Pluto a dwarf planet does not affect its orbit in any way. Similarly, if we define God as the background, then God doesn't exist.

So, ironically, I suppose we agree lucent: God doesn't exist.

No, we don't agree. I didn't suggest a background system, I suggested the system itself is God.

We experience the world subjectively. This is fact. Therefore, we must be separable, individual systems.

Non sequiter. First, we only *appear* to experience the world subjectively, so this is not a fact. What you're suggesting is metaphysics, for which there is no evidence. Can you even prove that there are other minds? No. Second even I granted you this premise the conclusion does not follow. This idea of "separable" isn't even coherent. In what sense are human beings separable from their environment, or from other humans? Do humans just pop into existence as is? No, they are created by other human beings. How do you separate a fetus from a pregnant mother? This is wild conjecture.

If separable systems interact with one another physically, they become entangled. This is a fact.

This statement..

Hence, whether it is our neural signals, our consciousnesses, our souls, or our Molony Trinkles (copyright pending), because they are separate, they never directly interact.

..contradicts this statement. Btw, what are "Molony Trinkles"?

If we assume there is no common background, then because they don't interact with each other, each system is itself the universe and therefore all existence within the closed system. This explains subjectivity: I am me, because I am not you.

This explains absolutely zero. Can you explain why we should even assume that? And if we do assume that, then how was the system set up, how did it get this way? What is the nature of each separate existence? How do you explain natural processes?

If we assume there is a common background, we run into the quandary. Why are we existence, but part of a bigger existence? Why am I me, and you you?

Souls assume separate existence (subjectivity). God assumes common background (objectivity). This requires complex explanation to tie the contradictory aspects together.

God is omni (all), both objective and subjective. Whatever God creates is not God (ie, finite)

Relationalism assumes separate existence (subjectivity). This is the explanation.

Explain how this is more complicated.

It's not even coherent.