EDIT: after - a little reflection on the critiques I've retracted my claim.
The principla confusion, for me, was confusing existence as a form of the intuition & transcendentally.
Kant marks a distinction in the world between noumena & phenomena. What is called the material world is simply phenomena. I'm calling the world both aspects of reality - noumena & phenomena (as shorthand - I'm not sure of the correct terminology). It certainly seems as though phenomena supervenes on noumena. But noumena doesn't on phenonema.
- Now, noumena must exist for otherwise where do our phenomena come from? They also cannot exist as existence is a pure intuition of the mind. That is the statement noumena must exist and not exist must be true.
Formally, we can assert: p and (not p) is true.
It does, however appear that there is an equivocation in exist. One is transcendental & the other is a form of our intuition.
So, perhaps not.
- Now since existence are pure intuitions of the mind we cannot say that noumena exist nor not exist. However, existence as a pure form of the intuition doesn't apply to noumena. So the predicate 'exist' doesn't apply to noumena. We can say that the noumena trancendentally exists.