I remember discussing this topic but I do not remember you calling me silly. Oh sorry you were only thinking it. Thank you :-)
You are welcome. You know on these matters we can never be sure :-)
Now when you say that the first person is all there is I am not sure it fits nicely with
the methodology I am following. I am not sure I understand why you don't need the UD,
given that the UD is just a nice third person description of the comp plenitude.
[That such a thing could exist is a highly non trivial consequence of the closure of
the set of programmable functions for the diagonalization: the existence of a universal
machine. (The Post Turing discovery)]. Cf the diagonalization posts.
You could as well just say you don't need comp. (But I use comp to just benefits from
computer science and mathematical logic taking into account Post Turing Church ...Solovay).
The first person essentially will be an intuitionist/constructivist machine, a self-extending
entity which goes through locally anti-symmetric sequences of knowledge states.
Physics seems to appears in the "first person plural" (where vast collection of interacting
machines are "multiplied"), but the last discovery ---(that a quantum
logic [even an infinity*] appears in the pure singular first person pov)--- surely makes
me more open to the importance of the pure (intuitionist) first person.
Please recall me your feelings about the comp hyp in the cognitive science/philosophy
of mind, if you mind.
I use comp if only because my more primary goal is to show that some hypothesis
could make some "theological" question empirically testable.
* That infinity of QL (Quantum Logic) converging toward CL (Classical logics)
could be a form of *arithmetical decoherence* as experimented by all sound
Universal Machine with respect to their normal neighborhoods/consistent extensions.
You should study logic just to see the beauty. (Or the error! This material is new,
and has not been verified by someone else. Caution.)