It answers your question. If you want your 'empty' need to be satisfied, I
recommend introspection.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brent Meeker [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 06 June, 2000 5:05 AM
> To:   everything-list
> Subject:      Re: You're hunting wild geese
> On 05-Jun-00, Higgo James wrote:
> > I have made my explanation abundently clear: WAP If our OM did not
> include
> > 'we seem to need an explanation for seeming to be observers' then this
> > question would not exist in the first place, so only 'seekers to the
> answer
> > to that question'-type ideas can seek to answer that question.
> > 
> > I simply apply WAP to ideas, not observers. I have said this several
> times,
> > and it *does* answer your question.
> OK, I guess I do understand you.  Usually the WAP is used to explain why
> the
> universe has certain chracteristics by saying they are the ones necessary
> that
> a class of physical entities - namely us - can exist.  But you apply it to
> ideas; and as I understand it not to a particular class of ideas but to
> whatever particular ideas occur to you.  So far as I can see this is a
> completely empty theory that boils down to whatever is is.  Do you have
> some
> way of limiting it?
> Brent Meeker  

Reply via email to