Re: You're hunting wild geese

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 21:04:52 -0700

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
Received on Mon Jun 05 2000 - 22:08:57 PDT