Trouble with articles like this is you always want to read about what the individual actually said, but have to scroll down to piece together that they thought of this inference.
The problem is how do you get to say non-reality has potential to be reality? Can we speak of the non-reality of the universe having the potential to become a universe in reality. Can we even say that of non-reality itself with it possessing in itself the potentiality for reality.
Metaphysics gets goofy and complex the more basic and fundamental you go.
I think, therefore I am.
These cranks have been around for a while:
*********************************************
"We were just discussing a most interesting subject," said the earnest matron. "Dr. Pritchett was telling us that nothing is anything."
"He should, undoubtedly, know more than anyone else about that," Francisco answered gravely.
"I wouldn't have supposed that you knew Dr. Pritchett so well, Senor d'Anconia," she said, and wondered why the professor looked displeased by her remark.
"I am an alumnus of the great school that employs Dr. Pritchett at present, the Patrick Henry University. But I studied under one of his predecessors - Hugh Akston."
...
A young man said, astonished, "I thought Hugh Akston was one of those classics that nobody studied any more, except in histories of philosophy. I read an article recently which referred to him as the last of the great advocates of reason."
"Just what did Hugh Akston teach?" asked the earnest matron.
Francisco answered, "He taught that everything is something."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged