> All right. So you both (Hal Finney and Lee Corbin) with the first axiom
Arghh! My new revelation says that axioms are fine if
you are doing math. But some of us are doing something
here that is entirely separate: philosophy. I love math;
it is my hobby. But axioms and all that shit are not
pertinent to my quests! Good luck with yours! That
may be the reason I can't read any of your papers?
> defining a knower. It is the incorrigibility axiom: let us write Cp for
more about "defining" and "axioms" ARGH!
> [Hal writes]
> > That is the sense in which I say that observer-moments are primary;
> > they are the most fundamental experience we have of the world.
> > Everything else is only a theory which is built upon the raw existence
> > of observer-moments.
> All right. I guess you agree that this is compatible with the fact that
> such a theory, built upon the raw existence of OMs, could infer the
> existence of more primitive objects, could explain how the "raw
> existence of OM" emerges from those more primitive objects and explain
> also how the theory of those more primitive objects emerge from the
> (only apparently raw, now) observer moments. All this without being
> circular. OK?
"Built"? "Emerge"? Bah, humbug.
As for circular, too bad your theories aren't circular! They'd