answer:Solipsism as far as I understand it does not mean or postulate that the world has been made for you or that you have made the world. That might be the conclusion (the ultimate meaning you’re looking for) after accepting solipsism, but it’s not innate in the philosophy. I consider it an important distinction. Does solipsism suggest a significant oneness in the universe? It sounds almost nice if you put it that way. Except that ‘oneness in the universe’ is a phrase that already draws a distinction between universe and self (via spatial framing / preposition). You might say that the universe dies with the solipsist. (It’s been said before, forget by whom. Many, I’m sure.) What does it tell you about everything and everyone you experience? Suppose that it would tell me those experiences are not verifiable against external opinion or memory, meaning that my understanding of the world would be tenuous (although I wouldn’t know it). Experience is incommunicable for a solipsist, like pretty much totally incommunicable, so if it can’t be recorded or communicated then it can’t have be measurable, it can’t exist in time as we understand it, it doesn’t have history or precedent. You would be a baby or a ‘cow in the field’ (as Herzog said once). Solipsism is kind of not so legitimate now, though, in light of Wittgenstein and his private language argument. (Read Philosophical Investigations and you will no longer be a solipsist.) Although I’m not big into philosophy, so maybe I’m wrong. But I would not want to live that way.