To be clear, the ordinary common sense view of personal identity being endorsed here posits knowledge claims of personal identity are objectively valid statements because these claims are priori truths. But I digress, this definition is of itself an act of charity because ordinary common sense does not simply presuppose more, but rather the consensus seems more of a pithy assertion concerning any fact of the matter. Continuing on, objectively valid knowledge claims are claims about things in the world that are objectively true (though not always) irrespective of whether we experience these things in reality. For example, suppose a scientific hypothesis postulates an unknown particle to not only exist, but to be a vital contributor to an observable
