A question

[SpaceCowboyDave]

If everything I am (self) is reliant on experiences (other) just as other is reliant on self to exist, then that means that I am synonymous with my surroundings (all of my experiences). And my surroundings are synonymous with everything that they have ever experienced and so on. So does that mean that I am I am omnipresent? Of course if you don't agree with the premises, we can discuss that too.

[FriendlyFace]

Inasmuch as omnipresent connotes no presence at all, yes. I feel like if we go by your terms your presence is not localized in physical reality.

[Original Poster]

Self can only be isolated arbitrarily and semantically.

[snoop]

You are only synonymous with your surroundings if you count your "surroundings" as your perception of your surroundings. It is true, you are inseparable from your perception of reality and so are one with it, but that does not make you one with physical reality, assuming it exists (which we will). Basically, your experiences are not (other) but also (self). You are therefore omnipresent in all of your personal experiences, but not with physical reality. This, however, is obvious.

[Chimpertainment]

You are of the same substance as your surroundings and on a foundational level, you are another grain of sand. One drop of water in an ocean of life. The singular oneness of all things has been summed up many times in those two words: I am.