Just for the record, that's a strawman misrepresentation. I don't answer philosophical or empirical questions just by consulting the dictionary. My point was that you're the one who needs the dictionary because you're the one playing word games. You're the one who's arbitrarily redefining words in your armchair attempts to reinvent the wheel.

If you were doing philosophy, you'd talk about actual philosophers and philosophical positions. You'd name them to be concrete instead of pretending you're the only one who's doing any work. And if you were building on science, you'd specify the theories or scientific principles you had in mind.

You'll find that that's what I do in my writings, but I didn't find any such specificity in your metaphysical arguments. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I can't find a single reference to any great philosopher or scientist in your writings. So your writings are as abstract as you can make them.

Anyway, the problem here isn't a lack of "foundation." It's your presumptuousness.