It means that semantics (meanings) are used in an inconsistent manner. For example:
A round square, is a semantically inconsistent phrase. It is a contradictory phrase. A round square is a hypothetically impossible thing (as in it cannot/does not exist).
Hopefully, you are clear on the following: If no omnipresent thing/entity exists, then that logically/semantically implies that non-existence exists.
If you are not clear on the above, I can show this to you. But I’m assuming you’re clear on this.
Call that which exists omnipresently E.
E is finite is a semantically inconsistent statement/belief. It is a contradictory belief. A finite E is a hypothetically impossible thing (as in E cannot be finite), therefore, E is necessarily Infinite.
E is imperfect is a semantically inconsistent statement/belief (see the argument for why believing in an imperfect E (which I labelled as Existence in my argument) results in semantical inconsistencies), which in turn means it is impossible for E to be imperfect because an imperfect E is a hypothetically impossible thing.
That which is semantically inconsistent, is also hypothetically impossible, as demonstrated above.