The Tradition of Formal Inquiry declares that among equally valid explanations, the one with the least assumptions wins: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
And he who needs the additional assumption gets to defend it. The burden of proof rests with the claimant.
Especially on one as bizarre as this, the claim to an: ‘Independent and Separate Observer, Self, Subject’.
But we shall not quibble. And we shall not whine.
This has numerous variants, Falsifiability, the ‘Burden of Proof’ [as in Russell’s Teapot] and so on, much of it directly relevant to investigating the wild religious claims of visiting overnight prophets. I’ll explain in the individual Posts.