Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot
And again, we've devolved into you being unable to formulate any better response than simply repeating (within your own post!) that someone else is wrong.
In this case, that's all there is to say and there's nothing more to say. I've explained that
1) You're using the phrase "distinct from" in a way that doesn't make sense.
2) You're using the phrase "contingent upon" in a way that doesn't make sense.
3) The claim that "If a part of the universe has a property then the universe has that property" is false.
4) Claiming that "reality is all that is real" and that "all possible states are real states" creates a framework in which one cannot meaningfully make claims as simple as the outcome of a coin flip.
I've also highlighted the following problems, but have no reason to expand on them at this time:
A) Claiming that "reality includes all future states" is problematic without accepting a form of strong determinism.
B) You suck at mathematical notation and verbiage.
C) Properties are not "contained by" the universe.
D) The claim that "If [potential states] are not real, then this is the only possible universe" is far from obvious and very likely false.
Good luck with whatever else you're going to try to do in this thread. I'm mostly going to be here to mock.