Why, aren't we feeling pretentious?

This might sound pretentious, yes, but what I meant is that people here don't know the details of my "macaroni theory". You'll see what I mean later.

Alright, since my point obviously didn't go through I'll repeat it in a simpler way. When you do calculations about an overall concept that encompasses past present and future such as what is "the meaning of life," you run into problems as you described if you don't understand that it's a recursive problem. Recursion means that it's a function that feeds itself into it in order to obtain a (sometimes) convergent solution. However this singularity is built, obviously if it's going to do its job well enough it's going to also iterate all future events into this solution.

I know what a recursive problem is. But as I said, I tried to explain the concepts of my theory as simply as I could, and it didn't work. Past, Present and Future don't have an exact meaning in my theory, since different timelines can "behave" in different ways in an infinitely-dimensional time. I'm not going to explain what I mean with that since it's a pain and as I already stated, it'd take a lot of space. Just know that present, future, and past, are your point of view from your position in a certain timestring (different timestrings compose a timeline). That is as simply as I can put it without spamming this topic with text.

If the solution to the "meaning of life" renders it useless, as you described, then it *isn't* a good machine and it just made a mistake. We'll assume this machine is perfect and doesn't get errors. So that scenario is now impossible. How? A self-consistent solution. A solution in which it itself is a factor in the calculation, which means that the fact of conveying to the machine what its purpose is, will still be itself a factor in determining the solution. And the "meaning of life" will be correct and will not lead to your nihilistic conclusion.

Okay, I see your point there. But remember that this is a purely hypothetical situation. Once the singularity is reached, it doesn't "exist" anymore in its original universe. "Existing in an universe" in my theory indicates wether or not a set of information is present in a certain "universe". Since it's not technically "in" the universe, and it's calculating what can "happen" in that universe (aka all the results of the information in the universe), the singularity will not have to deal with itself.

The problem that arises, the way I see it, is proving that such a solution exists since not all recursive problems converge to a single or a finite set of values. Anyway,

this comic seems relevant now.

That's an interesting comic. The problem is that in all your definitions and sentences, you stick to the general definition of universe we have today.

As I said once or twice in my previous posts, the assumption of the singularity existing and being able to process its universe without processing itself, is heavily based on my theory (and my view of space and time, especially time). This situation in which a singularity creates a new universe originally caused a paradox in my theory, and I originally tried to fix it with the same method I used to fix some of my other paradoxes: imagining

*one* universe (known originally as "non-verse" and later as "nyan-verse" because I like memes) that does "exist" in time, but contains all paradoxical information and has no "presence" in any time dimension.

This solution did not work until I supposed that the singularity, being "infinitely powerful" when it comes to calculating a universe, can be considered like a universe itself. That because the singularity

*was* in a point in time, but the nyanverse

*isn't.*
Without the basics of my theory, as I said, it's very hard to understand what I mean. Just know that basically as soon as the singularity is able to calculate anything in its original universe, and in case it decides to simulate its own one, it "becomes" that one. Physical position within its original universe shouldn't be considered, because it's useless in this problem. The singularity's only behaviour was to "calculate its universe". Wether it is "in" its original universe or not, is unrelated, since the singularity is not a physical thing. It's the information itself that is able to process the other information without affecting it.

The Singularity transcends any rule, because it's "an universe on its own", or, in the correct terms, it's "an infinite set of information bound by defined rules". Those rules are not the same as our universe, nor are they the same as the original universe where the singularity once existed

*physically*.

EDIT: I ended up spamming anyway. Well then.

EDIT2: a TL;DR version, extremely simplified, would be the following: the singularity is an infinite set of information that calculates the other set's possibilities (aka what can happen in its original universe). The two sets are unrelated to each other in these calculations because the singularity's behaviour does not affect the universe. So the singularity can just "ignore" itself.