Hey everyone, I'm writing a short 250 word paper for my metaphysics class and I was trying to think about whether or not this made sense. Our professor wants us to make it clear that it is metaphysically contingent that I exist and then discuss whether the same proposition is epistemically contingent.

I don't want this to be like /r/homeworkhelp, I just want to be absolutely sure I understand the definitions.

Here's what I put and I was wondering if I'm on the right thought process.

My paper so far

In order for it to be metaphysically contingent, there must exist a world that I do not exist and another where I do exist, but not at the same time. It depends on what the world is like. I must exist if I am conscious right now. However, my existence is not metaphysically necessary. I know that I did not exist before 1994. So metaphysically, it is possible that I would not exist because I would not have even been born then. I believe the question "do I exist" is also epistemically contingent. I know that I exist in this world, but for all I know, there exists a world where I do not exist. What if there is a wormhole to a world in a time before the year 1994? If so, there's no way that I could exist in that world. But this would open up an entirely different question of whether or not it would be possible for me to both exist and not exist.

Am I understanding the difference between metaphysical contingency and epistemic contingency?