The proof is a reduction ad absurdam. If you can't tell me the difference between an X that cannot be detected and a non-existent X, then you don't know what you are talking about. What you are asserting with X exists is pure nonsense. Both terms are undefined the X and the exists. You might as well be saying Blap frugles.
Your comments (2)
Sounds logic to me
The proof is a reduction ad absurdam. If you can't tell me the difference between an X that cannot be detected and a non-existent X, then you don't know what you are talking about. What you are asserting with X exists is pure nonsense. Both terms are undefined the X and the exists. You might as well be saying Blap frugles.