At Touka, I was more referring to Westbrick rather than you when I asked that. I think we agree fairly well. And I'm not well versed enough in QM to really continue the discussion on that front. Moving on to Westbrick...
A supposition which the Beyond Good and Evil passage definitively calls into question. Is it that specific parts of the passage are unclear? I've taken a class or two on Nietzsche, so I can try my best to clarify what he's getting at if you give me some specifics.
Um... Alright. Which are you refuting between these two statements.
That which holds a property outside the properties of non-existence exists
or
Thought/thinking holds properties outside the properties of non-existence
or something else?
What makes one perception of the world the "true" one.
Well, I'd say any perception of the world that holds no properties that base reality does not hold is true. If base reality exists solely in the existence of thought, then then the perception that holds that to be true would be true. Of course, the more properties a perception holds that fill that requirement, the better that perception is as a means to truth. This does of course, almost certainly mean that the current scientific worldview is not 100% true, but then again I doubt any worldview can claim to be 100% true without drastically limiting what it claims.
Most people would define truth as "that which exists," so your definition isn't that far off. What this doesn't make clear is its relation to science and how science is evaluated epistemologically (and I also don't understand what "a set of properties" means; so only part of which exists is true?).
Well, I wouldn't consider thought itself to be truth, hence the properties bit. Science comes into it because science is a means towards discarding properties that do not fit with reality, hence the scientific account will move closer to being a true account as time goes on. Science makes claims of more properties than most methods, and it regularly attempts to expunge any that are false, which makes it a very powerful method as far as discovering truth. I'd rather this doesn't get into another true vs useful discussion, so let me say that it is useful for discovering truth, on top of being useful from the standpoint of wanting to improve the quality of life as I, and many others (assuming they exist of course), define it. Usefullness and truth are not the same thing, but they are often connected quite closely, as that which is not true is usual less useful than that which is, and that which is useful can often be applied to discover truth.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below!
http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn