`  ::: Well, the point I was trying to make is that the WAP is uncontroversial because it is a tautology or virtually a tautology.  Football might be a ball (instead of a game).  But observing requires at least one observer, as a consequence of the premise.  A fantasy (that I would think would be controversial in scientific circles) is an observer observing physical conditions that preclude the observer's physical existence.  I don't agree (even loosely) that an uncontroversial statement is tautological (say ``Killing innocent children is bad.``)  A sorta non-trivial value judgment (about what makes for ``bad`` and what does not) has to be first made.  But ``Dead people are not alive`` should not be controversial and should not need external proof.   `