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