I see what you're saying, that's actually what I was going to bring up when I was referring to Schroedinger's cat. Maybe we as humans have the power to create possibilities so long as they coincide with our current view of reality. In other words, what if Radio waves didn't exist before Nikola Tesla discovered them? What if it's because Nikola Tesla invented it that it was able to exist before he discovered it? Does that make sense? I guess what I'm saying is, if no consciousness can yet perceive something to be true, then discovers it, whos to say it even existed in the first place? Aka Schroedinger's cat

I understand why you don't like the idea of of "possible worlds" but in my opinion, in a reality with no creator, it doesn't make sense to me that all things would not be possible.

Ohh I think you might be right. Granted what I wrote on the test was no where near as long and explanatory as what I have written here. This was the prompt:

Let us assume that there is only one possible world. If this is the case, what are the consequences of any proposition being possible? In other words, what follows from ◆P?

Oh that's pretty cool, that's the exact argument I'm trying to propose.

I think I might have misinterpreted his argument by thinking he meant "any and all" when he probably did mean "any one".

I'm having this same conversation with my philosophy teacher at the moment. I'm too lazy to tailor the response to your question, but maybe what's written here will clear up any misconception.

From what I understand about the "unseen", from the Trial and Death of Socrates, was that he was unafraid of death because he was confident that his spirit would live on.
My question is, what is the spirit if not our thoughts? If there are multiple universes, then there exists other forms of me with different thoughts. Hence, my thoughts
do not determine my self-identity. Also, if there is a universe where I am living your life, and you are living mine, then my thoughts (somewhere) are the same as yours.
Therefore, everything must be connected. (I reallyy hope I didn't commit a fallacy there lol).

Now in response, one possible world wouldn't be so different, in fact it would null and void everything I've said. My theory relies on the proposition of there
being multiple universes, in which the one we are living in is one. The atom from the Big Bang however, comprises of all these Universes into one space a.k.a
the fourth dimension.. or something. Therefore, all the potentialities and actualities do not consitute a branch of the multiverse, but instead the entirety of it,
the big bang being the source of all branches of the universes. In terms of realization not making the world vastly different divulges the theory of Schroedinger's Cat,
which I will not get into because I may bring to surface ideas that are incongruent with the topic at hand. The quote from Plato was less about his philosophy and more about the
quote itself, as well as many other philosophers labelling the divine as "immovable". It can be argued that things such as depression, anxiety, and drug addictions are
a matter of perception, and in my opinion not enough is known about the brain to say otherwise. Philosophy itself is the subject of combatting many of these things,
and Aristotle himself beleived that his conclusion in moral philosophy rests on the perfection of virtues, which doesn't exist, which is why those things exist to
even the most humble. In my opinion too, anxiety and depression are the result of having an emotional connection to the things that affect and cause such emotional responses.
I consider myself a stoic, and while I do not deny the factor that chemical imbalances play a role in such emotions, I do believe that anxiety and depression are much
the effects of some underlying uncertainty and desire. To minimize the effects of those emotions would mean to become comfortable with uncertainty and factors that are outside
of our control. Our definitions of the moved coincide with each other, but something cannot be moved without time, and it is because of time that our brains are able to
send messages, that our food is able to be cooked, etc. But to acknowledge God would mean to acknowledge the fact that he exists in a world without time. Instead, my argument
is that our definition of time isn't compatible with what I am proposing, instead that the processes that occur when everything is possible has already played out, as the
divine being is the connection of every single one of us, and that the soul isn't some body, but instead consists of our ideas. Hence, since the divine consciousness in the end of time
is able to understand and perceive our ideas and experiences, then our souls live on, bound to this omnipotent presence.

The conflict I'm referring to can be basically anything, but most often it is the battle of self-identity.. or basically "I am what I think you think I am." (can't remember who said that). It can also be learning, anytime you learn something you have conflicting ideas about how to do something(at least with methods, memorization is something else), until is understood and therefore passed onto the subconscious mind to be regarded as the best way to go about something until that idea receives some kind of conflict, in which case it is brought back to the level of the conscious mind.

Yeah that was his response, I didn't receive any credit lol.

Let us assume that there is only one possible world. — Justin Peterson

You raise a valid point. The unconscious was a typo on my part, I meant to refer to the subconscious. I think that the conscious mind is what tries to make sense of its surroundings. I.e. When you fight with someone, you either blame the other person or you blame yourself. Either way your conscious mind will find a way to accept one view or the other so that it is not always on the mind. After that it is passed to the subconscious mind, which (almost) instantly interprets the emotions that are set about how the person should react to any given situation on the subject. More often than not, if the person sees that the view conflicts with what the person deems to be true then the person's identity is at stake because anyone with an average level of pride has acknowledged that the viewpoint is level with their self-identity, which is a mistake. The thing is, to release oneself from this connection between belief and self-identity is to rid oneself of seeing reality as being only one thing and not the other. And so it is closer to the level of balance and therefore closer to divinity.. in my opinion.

That was a proposition that was given to me as extra credit on an exam in my philosophy class, what followed is my extended response.