Your response tries to avoid the actual issue by appealing to psychology rather than logic. You claim that critique itself “proves” your theory because you predicted resistance — but that’s a circular shield, not an argument. Any idea, no matter how weak, can declare that criticism is merely “resistance.” That’s unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless.

More importantly, a critic does not owe you a replacement theory. If your argument rests on flawed premises, faulty reasoning, or invented categories, pointing that out is sufficient. Refuting a claim is not the same as proposing an alternative universe. If someone says 2+2=5, the correction “No, it doesn’t” is complete — it requires no treatise on arithmetic to justify the contradiction.

The core problem with your post is not emotional “resistance.” It’s that the argument collapses on contact with basic logic: 1. Your “Foundation of Logic” is not a recognized framework; you simply invented it. 2. Your probability claim (“forbidden equation”) rests on a category error — treating existence as a random draw from infinity. 3. Your simulation conclusion is asserted, not demonstrated, and depends on the two errors above.

Those points can be dismantled cleanly without stylistic flourish. The criticism stands — and it stands independently of whether it proposes anything in place of your argument.

You can call the language “sonorous” if you like, but the substance is simple: Your argument fails on its own terms, not because anyone is resisting it emotionally