Well I glad we cleanly sorted that one out.
WTF am I reading? It doesn't even make any sense. Just some random words bashed together.
Shockingly, I understood this, but it's still inaccurate. Of course he doesn't realize it, but this is close to an Occam's Razor-type inference based upon all available, pragmatic evidence acquired throughout our life. It's a perfectly valid conclusion that we can't possibly know whether the Universe does or does not exist in the absence of our experience of it, or some aspect of it.
His mistake is making a definitive conclusion. He is claiming he knows the Universe doesn't exist in the absence of our experience of it, rather than claiming we can't know, which would be empirically correct. There is no theoretical way to empirically validate or invalidate the existence of the Universe in the absence of our experience of it.
Way over my head.
One question. If the universe didn't exist before I was born, how did my parents exist to create me?