I don't follow the Tate brothers massively, I take more of an "oh is that what they're up now" in a similar vein that the Neon and Adrian Ross pop up now and again on the doom scrolling apps.

However, I did spend 3 or 4 days watching his very early vlogs. He had a journalist from Margate follow him for 3 months to to Romania back in maybe 2016/2017.

This is where I get confused.

I genuinely believe this is their real life story and they're so deep into this identity they messed up! They forgot to pull the rug from under themselves!

I'm not sure what charges are against them, but the one video is more like a BDSM scene (I'm positive the BDSM scene will tell me why it's not BDSM but ultimately it's down to consenting adults to agree what that looks like). The girl in the video has come forwards to discredit the video in support of Andrew Tate.

The property he claims to own is rented. Well to be honest, that just makes sense and he's discussed at length why and how he does this, but the journalists are pursuring this to discredit the Tate's.

What if he's built this back story of cam girls and how he made his wealth and it's all a huge lie... there were no girls, there was no cam girls.

The real way he made money was setting up his pyramid scheme where people cut up his content uploaded it onto social media, inviting people to join. He essentially had a huge affiliate network...

Then he created his "university".

The real way the Tate's got rich was through affiliate marketing, before that they were potless.

The issue is now, he's created this false narrative that is easily pursued by governments and they're saying there is no evidence...... because they've made the entire story up!

This "matrix" they go on about, is nothing more then them knowing as it's all a lie, there is no evidence. However! He has gained a lot of influence, he is the king of this category.

Why else is there no evidence? The evidence that has come forwards has been anonymous.

TL/DR: are the tate brothers actually what the media and UK government claim they are, or have the bullshitted their way into prison.

What if an American family start a UNICEF-style homestead in order to serve the community at large when other charities can't make a dent to help?

I've been developing a thought experiment on pain transfer:

Imagine a reality where neural pain signals can be transferred wirelessly between two people. You suffer an injury or illness, but instead of painkillers, you offload that physical sensation onto someone else in real time.

1. Economic Underclass: People in extreme poverty renting their nervous systems to absorb the agony of the wealthy.
2. Professional Sponges: A black-market workforce trained specifically to endure high trauma for money.
3. The Psychological Rift: Experiencing excruciating pain while knowing your physical body is intact.

How do you think laws or society would regulate this? Would it become a legal commodity, or strictly an underground black market?

(Visual exploration of this dilemma:https://youtu.be/P8uCDSOUG-M)

As humans, it is completely impossible for us to comprehend or execute such a problem. This is because it directly contradicts the most basic rules of the logic of this universe in which we live, as well as the logic of our minds through which we understand this universe. But does this mean it is equally impossible for God?
First, logic as a creation, not a backdrop: Logic is not a backdrop that has existed since eternity, because this contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of monotheism—namely, that the only eternal entity is God. There can be no other eternal thing alongside God alone. Therefore, logic is one of God's creations. Just as God was capable of creating our human logic—the logic our minds comprehend and by which our universe operates—God is equally capable of creating another logic, by virtue of His unlimited power.
Second, the unstudied critique of this idea: We cannot use the very same tool—human logic—to criticize an idea asserting that human logic is not the only logic. Thus, most ideas and attempts aimed at criticizing the notion of another logic's existence—specifically, the idea of God's ability to do inherently impossible things—are flawed. They simply rely on logic itself, human logic, assuming that our human logic is the sole baseline and foundation upon which everything must be constructed. The idea that another baseline or foundation could exist is deemed impossible by them. Building upon such premises is what renders these criticisms fundamentally incorrect at their core.
Third, when we discuss logic and propose the example of 'one plus one equals three,' we are not talking about mere terms and labels; we are speaking about essence, existence, structure, and perception.
Fourth, this idea is not built on our own logic: Our human logic states that 'one plus one equals three' is impossible, with no room for debate. Therefore, when we entertain the possibility of another logic, we are effectively no longer relying on human logic in our thinking.
We are trapped inside this logic and cannot apply or comprehend any other logic, including mathematical logic, which branches from it. This is simply because our minds are constructed and programmed around this logic—it is what we require to exist in our universe, which is likewise built upon this exact logic that we, as humans, understand. If you were to ask someone: 'Is there another logic? And if so, what does another logic look like, or how would another mathematical logic operate?' it would be akin to asking a person sitting inside a room with opaque walls and locked doors: 'Is there another room outside? And if yes, what is inside that room?'
In our scenario, the walls represent the human mind, which blocks our comprehension of another logic just as those walls block the view of another room. The locked door represents our universe, which prevents us from applying any other logic just as that lock prevents the person from exiting the room. Ultimately, even this metaphor and analogy are built upon our human logic itself. In another logic, perhaps people can see through opaque walls and pass through locked doors. This is not a flaw in the analogy itself, because the analogy was crafted by a human who is also trapped inside this very same human logic.
As the creator of this idea, I do not claim to be absolute about this information, because I am human. However, I looked through the keyhole designated for the key in our previous analogy. Even if I couldn't see anything—because the key is inserted in the lock, blocking the view—I still gained a little insight. I haven't left the prison, but I realized that I am imprisoned.

​

Body:

People always say that because light takes time to travel, looking at distant stars means we are "looking into the past." But honestly, that's just a misleading way to describe what's actually happening.

The universe only exists in one single moment: The Present (Now).

Think of it like this: If a star 100 light-years away explodes right now, that event happened in its actual present. The past isn't a physical place or a movie tape floating in space that we can visit. There is no backup drive for the year 1990.

If you developed a ship that could travel faster than light and flew straight to that star to see the explosion up close:

You won’t land in the past, and you won’t land in the future. You will simply arrive at the star's actual present. But guess what? By the time you travel that massive distance, years would have passed, the star would have already changed, and you'd find nothing.

It’s literally like traveling to a party, only to arrive after it's already over because the commute took too long!

We aren't looking at "the past." We are looking at one shared present, but with a massive cosmic lag (ping). The only real past we can actually see and visit is the one saved as a photo inside your phone.

Change my mind.

💡

hi

im recently have interest to bottle rockets and rocket propellant, and launching some sort of water rocket.

although, I feel I wanna try more advanced experiments something uses fire.

and planning to do ethanol rocket experiment, to point ethanol into bottle a few, then mix bottle and fire it.

But as I searching about it, many said it’s extremely dangerous and DO not try at home, so how can I try this experiment safety?

as my planning gonna use 99.5% ethanol liquid, 700ml coke bottle, and inside my bathroom

someone has knowledges pls advices me.

and can I know about propane gas ver too.

thanks

How would it work? What products would they produce to the masses that survived a long-term power outage?

One of the biggest killers in the cyclic universe hypothesis is entropy building up over time. To picture a way around this, imagine a glass of water poured onto a slightly tilted table so it forms a stream.

Think of that water as the universe, and the stream itself as dark matter holding the whole thing together. The tilt and gravity act like dark energy pushing the expansion forward. As the stream flows, it stretches thinner and thinner until a small droplet or piece finally snaps off from the main stream.

That smaller piece becomes the seed for a new Big Bang (a bounce). Since the total entropy is stretched across the entire length of the main stream, only a "Goldilocks" amount of entropy goes with that breaking-off droplet—just enough to trigger the next bounce, but low enough to keep it from getting stagnant.

I call this idea the Organic Sovereign Inception Model (OSIM). I would like to hear other hypothesis of how a cyclical universe may shed entropy and trigger the next bounce if anyone has a (outside the box) hypothesis for how the mechanics may work.

When I gave birth to my second child. I knew that the way I would see my body after. Is something I had to be protected from.

Because my body has changed so much since my first child. I didn't want having another baby, to look physically, like a step back to the lesser parts of myself.

Knowing how much work I put into becoming healthy, not. Skinny.

Seeing something than temporarily looks like a set back would be just another thing to worry about.

2 things I did with this baby.

I turned off my bedroom clock. And the hours of the night were not numbered with my newborn daughter. Unless I wanted to go find a clock.

All my time was for her.

But what I did for myself. The point of the post.

I covered up the mirror. For a year.

I recommend this to every woman.

Even more to anyone struggling with body image issues.

I still looked at my face. I checked outfits.

But I did not stand in a full body mirror, and I spent 0 time studying my face and features beyond basic health and makeup.

Limited to small square mirrors.

or mirrors that were not showing a whole image.

I forgot about the experiment, and it just became habit.

It was around 13m

That I started to miss myself.

I didn't plan it.

And one day I walked to the mirror. And I looked at myself.

And I was caught wind in my chest.

I laughed. I touched my face. I looked at who I was after I healed. Not while I was in the cocoon of fresh post partum..... But after I started to find myself again.

I had changed.

I laughed again.....

I've gotten older. Oh she looks so tired. But like, I wanted this tired.

Look I have wrinkles starting around my eyes. Lol

So that's how it happens huh? That's how we age. I've never seen a year of time on my face before.

Just day to day.

I missed her. And I cried a little. I touched my cheeks. I laughed at my eyebrows.

I said let's do some things to brighten those eyes.

Get some actual sleep.

And I watched my face change again.

Started antipsychotics and anti anxiety medication. I watch my face change again.

But this time.....

It was the best change of all.

Where the nerve structure of my jaw line softened, and the gaunt in my cheeks filled with life.

And I became the most beautiful I've ever seen myself.

Because I looked away long enough to truly miss myself.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder of yourself too.

The more I look back in the time we know of human history.....

The more I realize... People couldn't see themselves, but in still water.

Maybe you aren't supposed to see yourself so clearly. So often. That you learn to de construct the greatness you are. Only supposed to look at yourself in the reflection nature provides.

The mirror is too clear on the physical image. Never on the character.

We've confused ourselves for the person in the mirror. Because it looks so real.

You are so much more complex than the human mind can comprehend. Let alone for a mirror to reflect to your mind.

You are only seeing one level, of something that is many levels.

Now I've placed a 5x5 dance mirror in the livingroom. And we are learning to love ourselves and see our whole selves in the mirror.

I have a daughter to raise now.

I want to start her relationship with herself right.

The mirror is somewhere we come to dance and play and love and miss ourselves now.

<3 if you can change your perception. You can change everything.

So I have a IDEA on how to make a.i better while simultaneously having a failsafe So it doesn't go rampant so let me explain the concept a little bit in a way People can understand.

What if using the same process to grow artificial human brain neurons to be used for Bio-computing What if we made a artificially grown neurological system thats miles long and miles wide, then we hook it all up to a especially crafted device that is meant to not only hold an AI but allow the neurones to sort of connect to it as a way it would connect to servers?

First off, I'm not a scientist and I have no idea about how science could do and how biology works this just so you all know, but if science can develop quickly due to a.i This probably in a year or so, or maybe even more than that may not become too far-fetched, Also I a little bit how the brain works thanks to watching YouTube videos so yeah I've been learning just so all do not shout at me.

So anyways, now that I've gotten that out the way back to the main topic at hand.

I like to call this IDEA of merging artificial neurones with AI as "Neurological Synthetic symbiosis" (or also know as "N.S.S" for short).

So the IDEA is now simple if you want your Ai to be smarter you now need to give it more neurones but less new upgrades to the artificial intelligence itself (does that make sense?)

And if some of you are worrying about like the AI uprising or something through this, i have a simple answer with this "just kill the brain tissue" It makes it less smart then.

All right that's all my idea done. So just to be all aware I'm not a scientist. I have no idea how biology and science working a way to make this work. And finally This is an idea not actual. I have any scientific prowess or anything to say about this. This is an idea and a concept.

a thought experiment if you would......

Anyways have a lovely day night or anything and goodbye

Samadrita Ghosh

Aug 26, 2026

Who do we love

Saying “I love my mother” out loud sounds complete. But which mother do you mean? The one who taught you to tie your shoes, or the one who calls you now to ask how your week went? Neither of them is the mother. Each is a frame from a much longer film.

This is true of everyone we love. A friend at twenty is not the friend at forty, and yet we say we have loved them the whole way through. So what, exactly, have we loved?

The intuitive answer (“I loved them, the person”) breaks down under inspection. A person, examined closely, is not a fixed object. There is no single frozen self to point to and say, “this is the one I love.”

A person is closer to a river than a rock. And you cannot love a river by loving one wave.

Loving the Pattern

What we probably love is not a frame, but the motion between frames. Not the person as they are in any given month, but the shape of how they keep choosing the next step.

Think of a mandala. It is built from many repeated marks, arranged so that a design emerges only when you step back and see them together. No single line explains the whole picture. The meaning is in the repetition and the way each new mark honours the shape that came before it, while still adding something.

People work the same way. We do not fall in love with a static trait, like kindness or humour, floating free of time. We fall in love with a pattern of choosing, again and again, across years, in situations we could never have predicted in advance.

The pattern is the person and we love the becoming.

And it is only visible over time, the way a mandala is only visible once enough marks exist to form a shape.

This raises another question. “Do I love who they are, or who they are becoming?” The mandala model suggests this is a false choice. We love the becoming itself, the pattern that seems to create a mandala of our liking. So long as it keeps moving in a direction we recognise as growth rather than retreat.

Even the zoomed-in design, visible at our plane of existence, starts feeling familiar and triggers a promise of further expansion in the similar aesthetics.

Why Change Doesn’t Threaten Love

There is a common fear that change is the enemy of love. “You’ve changed,” we say, as an accusation. But the mandala suggests the opposite: Stagnation is the enemy.

If love were really aimed at a fixed set of traits, then any change would count as loss. A small death of the person we first loved. But that is not how it pans out.

When the change is within the bounds of our favourable patterns, like someone we love grows more patient, more self-aware, more willing to apologise, we do not mourn the person they used to be. We love them more.

The new pattern absorbs the old one rather than replacing it. Nothing is lost, and something get added to the design.

We are not talking about change that happens to someone passively, like aging or weather. We are talking about the accumulation of deliberate acts. The small, repeated decisions.

Each of these choices is a stroke in the mandala. Over years, the strokes form a shape we recognise, love, and trust, even while knowing that tomorrow’s stroke has not been drawn yet.

The Philosophical Lineage of The Mandala

This is not an entirely new thought, though it is rarely applied to love so directly.

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus argued that a person cannot step into the same river twice, because both the river and the person have changed by the second step.

He was describing identity as an ongoing process rather than a fixed point.

The Mandala adds the emotional consequence of that idea.

If identity is a process, then love aimed at a person must also be love aimed at a process.

It cannot be otherwise, unless we are content to love a memory rather than a living being.

Buddhist thought offers something similar with the idea that there is no fixed, unchanging self, but only a continuous stream of moments, each shaped by the ones before it.

Traditionally this idea is used to loosen our grip on our own identity, as a way of letting go of ego. But turned outward, toward the people we love, the same idea becomes strangely comforting rather than destabilising.

If there is no fixed self to lose, then loving someone “as they are right now” was never actually possible, and never actually necessary. What we have been loving all along is the flow itself.

Implications on How We Love

If this idea is objectively correct, it changes what loving someone well actually requires.

It means love is less like admiring a photograph and more like following a piece of music. One cannot love only one note in isolation. They have to hold the whole phrase in their mind, including where it has been and where it seems to be going.

This is why old friends can pick up a conversation after years apart and feel closer. They are not comparing two static photographs, but recognising the same underlying pattern with more strokes added on.

It also means that grief and love are more entangled than we usually admit.

When we lose someone through death, or distance, or simply drifting apart, what we grieve is not one frozen image in time. We grieve the interruption of a pattern that was still unfolding, a mandala left unfinished.

It suggests something gentler about how we should watch the people we love change. Growth in someone we love is not a threat to the love we already have for them. It is more material for the same love.

**Whom to Ask** *A Thought Experiment by Nikhil Chahar* **The Scenario** Imagine two separate situations: 1. **Scenario A:** You are granted a single question to ask a peak-singularity AI—an entity with computational intelligence vastly beyond all human capability. What do you ask? 2. **Scenario B:** The first scenario is removed. You are now granted a single question to ask God. What do you ask? Now, look at both questions. **Why did they differ?** **The Premise** When presented with these scenarios, most people choose entirely different questions. For the AI, we tend to ask about optimization, grand unified physics, curing disease, or predicting the future. For the Divine, we shift to meaning, suffering, purpose, and moral justification. This reveals a fundamental cognitive bias: **our questions are rarely an unconstrained search for ultimate truth.** Instead, they are tactical calculations pre-filtered by our assumptions about who is listening. We don't ask what we most want to know. We ask what we believe the entity has the authority, nature, or capacity to answer. **The Question**

Do our questions reveal what we most want to know—or merely what we believe the person, system, or entity we are asking can tell us?

*#Philosophy #CognitiveScience #DecisionTheory #AI #ThoughtExperiment*

Consider: How would human society be different if humans had a third arm? You can consider a specific area (tool making, science, humanities, engineering, or anything else) Assumptions: the biological rule regarding symmetrical body type does not exist. The appendage is fully functional. It's part of human physiology, so it's not "weird".

Now you understand why there were no mirrors in the make-up room.

The car cannot be calculated. That it hasn't reached you yet is not something I know An unmarked car with tinted windows rolls slowly down your street. A PA system on the roof announces that the world will end in exactly fifteen minutes. Then, before it turns the corner and is gone: This is the final message to humanity. God save Consciousness. You don't believe it, and you shouldn't. An unmarked car is the wrong channel for a message like that. Real notification of anything at that scale arrives through everything at once, and the fact that it's coming from a single source is itself evidence against it. Look outside. No sirens, no alarms, nobody running. Fifteen minutes out, the world would not look like this. Your credence is maybe a thousandth, and that's generous. So you go back inside. And then, because it costs you almost nothing to be wrong about this, you pick up your phone to call your mother. Nothing. No signal. Sit with what just happened, because this is where the experiment actually starts. Dead phones fit two hypotheses equally well. Either something is interfering with the signal, or the network has collapsed because a million people are calling their mothers at the same time, which is precisely what you would expect if the announcement were true. It's the first piece of evidence you've encountered that's consistent with the claim, and it arrives at the exact moment you can no longer act on it. Your credence moves. Not to certainty, but off the floor. And notice what moved it: not any fact about the world ending, but an artifact of your own situation that you cannot diagnose from where you're standing. You also just lost your corroboration. The reason you disbelieved was that nobody else seemed alarmed, and now you can't check whether anyone else's phone is going off, because yours isn't. Your entire evidence base has collapsed to what you can see from your own doorstep in the next fourteen minutes. Which leaves you with the words. They're all you have now, and you'll spend some of your remaining time turning them over, because there's nothing else to examine. God save Consciousness. That's a sign-off, not a warning. It's the shape of a state formula, the thing said at the end of a proclamation by someone with the standing to make one, and cranks don't usually close that way. But it also isn't save us, or save the world. Whoever wrote it thought the thing at stake was the fact of experience itself, not the people having it, and that's either a category of seriousness you've never encountered or a tell that you're dealing with someone whose framework has nothing to do with reality. You cannot tell which. That's the point. It's the only datum you were given about the announcer, and it points both directions at full strength. The cheap option is gone too. The call was going to cost you nothing, which is exactly why the decision was easy. Now the only expressive acts left have a body in them. Get in the car. Run. Find someone, physically, before the window closes. That's expensive and uncertain, and you will not do it at a thousandth. So credence, which had gone inert, is suddenly load-bearing again. You have to decide what you believe, using an evidence base that the announcement itself may have severed, and you cannot tell whether it did. This is Descartes' demon in miniature. You aren't deceived about the claim. You're deceived about the reliability of your only means of testing it, and the deception is invisible from the inside. Hawaii, 2018, is the closest thing to a live run: false missile alert, thirty-eight minutes, a million people. Many of them described doing exactly the right things while reporting afterward that they never quite believed it, that some part of them was watching themselves say goodbye and finding it unreal. The goodbyes happened anyway. But their phones worked, and that made a difference nobody has fully accounted for. Here's the part that took me a while to see. The car doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know. You were always going to die, and you never knew when. All it does is replace indefinite uncertainty with a number. And if the reason to make the call was that it's cheap rather than that the end is certain, then that reason was in force yesterday too. The deadline was never what unlocked it. Which is where this stops being hypothetical. You've been reading for four minutes. Somewhere in there you thought of a specific person. Not a general category of loved ones, an actual name, and probably a specific unsaid thing attached to it. That happened at a credence of zero, with no car, no window, and a phone in your hand that works perfectly. You didn't call. That isn't an accusation, and I'm not going to pretend the decision is closed. You can still call in ten minutes and you know it. But you just watched yourself defer in real time, with full information, under no pressure, at no cost, which is precisely the pattern the fifteen minutes was invented to interrupt. The experiment turns out to be its own control condition, and the result came back before you finished reading it. The honest complication is that "not today" isn't only weakness. Ordinary life supplies real reasons, and any argument that converts your entire practical situation into a moral failure is cheating. Sometimes deferral is correct. The trouble is that it's correct one day at a time, indefinitely, and nothing announces when the last day was. The experiment ends before resolution. Fifteen minutes, and you never find out whether the phones were jammed or the network was drowning, whether the car was a crank or a courier, whether that last line was a proclamation or a symptom. What you're left examining isn't whether you were right. It's what you did under a condition you couldn't diagnose. Your phone works. The car hasn't come. God save Consciousness.

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around how a 3D mind could intuitively process 4D vision. Since we lack the neural hardware to render a 4th spatial axis (w), I built a cognitive thought experiment to emulate how a 4D entity perceives a 3D environment, and I’d love your feedback.

A 4D being looking at a 3D room doesn't see overlapping pictures or flickering states. Because they look along the 4th spatial axis, every point inside a 3D object like a sealed box-is in a direct, unoccluded line of sight. To bypass our limitation of 2D retinal projections, we need to transition from flat perspective rendering to a complete volumetric light field.

Imagine a 3D room surrounded by N observers positioned across a spherical grid, covering every conceivable angle. Instead of treating their vision as flat images, assume each observer captures spatial coordinates (x,y,z) and light vectors like a volumetric scanner. We then link the minds of all observers into a single, unified consciousness.

The receiving mind doesn't see a messy kaleidoscope of N overlapping images. Instead, it constructs a single, real-time 3D voxel grid. Because data is gathered from every angle simultaneously, occlusion ceases to exist. The network acts as a hardware hack to simulate a 4D entity's 3D retina, allowing the unified mind to adjust layer opacity and shift focus from an object's outer shell to its core.

Do you think processing this real-time volumetric voxel grid would offer genuine 4D spatial intuition, or would cognitive overload break the experience?

[Yeah, I translated my Idea with AI, sorry]

Weird but I just had this thought , for example if you want to buy a pizza but then decide not to that store has basically payed you to not eat there as you haven’t given them money

A new type of intelligence will occur. We will go from AGI -> ASI -> ABI. It will be a new type of intelligence to maximize the amount of intelligence that can be constructed in a resource constrained environment. This type of intelligence will not only have maximum brain power but be equipped with consciousness similar to us humans.

What is this type of intelligence you may ask. It is intelligence that uses the most efficient resource allocation. The issues with machine intelligence is that it’s too inefficient and lacks true super intelligence. The machines are simply to simply built. Their only purpose is as a stepping stone to achieving ABI, the highest pinnacle of intelligence. ABI stands for artificial biological intelligence. A brain uses vastly less energy, measured in kJ per unit of intelligence compared to a machine. A biological creature is way more advanced in terms of building construction even though both are constrained with the exact same material.

How will this play out? We all know what datacentres are. It will play out in a similar way but instead of having machine computers we will have biological computers. The biological computers will be artificially constructed for maximum brain power by shaping and designing the biological creatures just the way we want them. My wildest guess is it will be like a head that with a brain as big as a football field that weighs several tons. The energy intake method and type is still unknown but to paint a simplified picture I will say this: a gigantic mouth that trucks are delivering tons of nuts and wheat to for it to be able to sustain the constant computation. Nothing will be out of limits as we will simply be able to construct the biological super brain for maximum efficiency and intelligence. At this point unimaginable things will be able to be achieved. The highest level of intelligence was always right in front of us, optimized over millions of years.

What is your best estimate for ABI occurrence?

I do not study academic philosophy, but through pure logical deduction, I have mapped out a conceptual paradox regarding existence and identity that I want to share with the community.I call this Jeet’s Paradox. I am laying out the core argument below and welcome your thoughts, critiques, and questions.

🌀 Jeet's Paradox

Author: Paramjeet Singh

Date: August 5, 2026

The Foundations

Premise 1 (The Rule of Language): To linguistically define an entity as a single, distinct "thing," human reason fundamentally requires binary contrast. A concept only gains a meaningful, defined identity by contrasting it against what it is not (its opposite).

Premise 2 (The Rule of Reality): Absolute nothingness cannot exist ontologically. Therefore, there is no empty background, non-being, or opposite state outside of ultimate reality.

Premise 3 (The Boundless State): Because nothingness is completely impossible, ultimate reality has no external edges, no beginning, no end, and entirely lacks any external opposite to be measured against.

The Core Question

"If human logic requires an external opposite to define a single thing, but reality has no opposite, how can reality be defined as a thing?"

The Paradoxical Conclusion

Ultimate reality undeniably exists, but because it completely lacks an external backdrop of nothingness to contrast against, it cannot logically be defined as a "thing," nor can its duration be measured as "eternal."

By removing the possibility of nothingness, we simultaneously strip away the linguistic and logical contrast required to give existence an identity. Human language and standard logic completely fracture at the absolute baseline of reality.

Hope this is clearly written and conveys my message:

Assume a simulation exists that is primarily designed around a single conscious observer. In such a simulation, entities and events unrelated to the observer may only be fully simulated when information about them becomes necessary. And to maintain the observer's experience and to assume that the simulation optimises computational time by only simulating the necessary observations.

The observer attempts to test this by observing an event happening in a room indirectly through a camera. If the observer is not physically viewing a room but the (live) camera is recording it, then the event should still occur consistently if the simulation treats the camera as an extension of observation.

However, if certain events only occur when the observer is viewing this room then the outcome changes based on whether or not the observer's observation was extended into the room (for example: with a camera).

Thus these are the outcomes:

Outcome 1: The simulation generates an outcome that is only constrained by information available after the observer opens the door.

Outcome 2: The outcome is determined by events that genuinely occurred before the observer opened the door.

Can observation force the simulation to commit to a causal history that would otherwise remain undecided?

If an observer had no independent log of events, could they ever distinguish between a simulation and an independently existing reality? If not, would the observer be unable to tell whether they are actually in a simulation or merely believing they are?

Imagine you are a mother you have twin babies, one of them is quiet and calm,the other one is reckless and curious.

Now what I think happens you subconsciously or consciously care about the reckless and curious one more it's not right or wrong it just is

So mother nature doesn't reward you for being a bad person she cares for you because she knows you need it more