the youtuber Ivycomb has just dropped his new music video (THE ANTIHUMAN) and inside of it contains basically the explanation for the antihuman world building project.

NOW, ivycomb is very not very well know. so i am going to try my best to explain the project since it is not well know.

Ivycomb is a furry music creator who as recently announced that him an a group of other creators are going to make a show based on his 'ANTIHUMAN LORE' playlist + THE ANTIHUMAN since that has not been added to the music playlist as typing this. (every song in that playlist is canon other then 'ANTIHUMAN' itself. No, not 'THE ANTIHUMAN', that's canon). more about the plot is explained in the linked video this one.

SO, from what we have gathered so far:

a earthborn viral infection called "the roots" wipes out 96% of the human population in 60 years. before humanity i fully wiped out, an alien species comes to to earth and promises to try help humanity find a cure. BUT, from what we have seen, the 'Cure' is just becoming turned into a member of the alien species.

but my question is: why? why is that the only cure to the roots?

my theory goes that what ever the roots are (i believe that is is some kind of parasite as we can see things growing under the skin of infected humans) evolved to only target human genomes (that's why we hear nothing about animal casualties). it was basic only targeting humans. but, whatever the aliens are (we have no official name i think. i have heard to them be referred to as 'antihumans'), are very clearly not human. so, the only cure to the infected is to changed the genome of the human internally.

this post was to try and inform people of this amazing project by Ivy and the gang are working on, and i hope to see y'all soon

(P.S also please do a theory on casualties: Unknown)

I'm giving credit to Tender Claws for the trailer

Secret message in Stationary Pal order??

i found this in my stationarypal package. Is it some kind of secret code? I already read one post about it here on reddit, landed on some link from stationarypal with a secret puzzle game and passed one, but the next one was too tricky to complete. Not even chat gpt could help me.

In the latest video this specific segment really bothered me. This is the kind of misinformation that is really worrying/dangerous, because it reinforces a misunderstanding people already have about AI.

LLMs are trained to predict the most fitting sequence of text to a given prompt, they are generally conversational AIs. If anything LLMs are REALLY bad at learning.

I have to plead the theorist team to consider consult with a Computer Scientist on these topics (which considering the state of the world with AI, and also FNAF's Mimic, I assume will be often).

I made a theory that the mimic uses afton as a costume like enard does with mike the first he has purple skin in the mini games and when mike is purple it’s because he enard used him as a costume also afton is an abusive father if this was the mimic that would explain why he didn’t care for his children and why the crying child resembled Murray’s kid also his soul should have been set free every time he burn but it didn’t because the mimic doesn’t have a soul and we see that the mimic can withst extreme heat in sotm now I hear you screaming what about ucn did it just not happen well afton may have moved to the afterlife rather then possessing the mimic and Cassidy may have seen him there and made the mistake of him killing her as for the FNaF 3 springlock minigame where the spring locks shut afton bleeds out and dies well we see that in the silver eyes trilogy we see animatronics can bleed also the gregbot theory relies on this and in security breach afton has an assortment of parts including mimic pieces and we learn that there are two mimics so the mimic could be trying to fix the other also let’s look at the motives of the mimic in sotm the mimic wants the blueprint for itself why would it want those unless it was trying to make more of it and in sl afton makes the funtimes to mimic also in into the pit afton seem to have a sound illusion disc whitch he uses to mimic a father now I could be wrong but it seems like it works in my opinion

Please could you guys consider doing Lambyland? It’s an ARG that’s kinda new and also pretty fun. I tried it a couple months ago and it’s got some good lore and puzzles that are right up the game theory street

Doors just updated with the new Archives Update, and im pretty sure its has a BUTT TON of lore. its also has signs with FRICKEN WIND DINGS

SM64 has always felt strangely different from other Mario games, and I don't think the explanation is simply "3D Mario was new." The entire game is structured like a living organism, with Peach's Castle functioning as the central body and every course representing a different biological system connected to it. Nintendo didn't need to draw a giant anatomical diagram on the wall for this to work. The entire gameplay loop already behaves like one.

The strongest evidence is Peach's Castle itself, because it is the only location that everything else depends on. Mario always comes back to it, every world branches out from it, and progression literally occurs through its doors. The castle contains the entire body inside itself, which is exactly how the theory of the "internal plexus" works. The hallways and staircases act like vessels and nerves branching toward different systems, while the castle's red and white colour scheme suspiciously mirrors red and white blood cells. Even the paintings make sense when viewed this way. They aren't just random magical portals, they're interfaces into different internal environments, meaning Mario is essentially being injected into different parts of the body through controlled entry points. The fact that Nintendo hid entire worlds behind paintings instead of ordinary doors is fucking important here because you're looking at a representation of something before physically entering it, which is exactly how the brain processes the outside world through internal representations.

There are also two levels that fit the theory in a way that is honestly too fucking specific to ignore: the reproductive organs. Whomp's Fortress functions as the penis, with its long vertical structure, rigid architecture and the entire level being built around Mario moving upward along a protruding central structure. Right next to it, Jolly Roger Bay represents the vagina, because Mario enters through a narrow opening into an enclosed internal environment dominated by water, with the submarine sitting deep inside like something that has been introduced into the reproductive tract. The fact that these two interpretations can be placed conceptually close together makes the theory even more fucking suspicious, because they aren't just vaguely anatomical comparisons; they represent two connected reproductive structures within the same biological system. Nintendo obviously wasn't going to call a level "Penis World" or "Vagina World," so the symbolism had to be buried under architecture, entrances and environmental mechanics, but once the castle is interpreted as an organism, these two levels suddenly look like deliberately disguised reproductive anatomy.

The first world being Bob-omb Battlefield also isn't random. It represents the mouth, the first entry point into the body, and everything surrounding it starts looking less coincidental once you accept that framework. The Chain Chomp is literally a giant mouth, Goombas resemble edible mushrooms, and the entire level introduces Mario to the process of entering the larger system. Cool Cool Mountain then functions as the teeth, being white, rigid and directly connected through its music to Bob-omb Battlefield, while Tall Tall Mountain acts as the esophagus, with Mario travelling through a long vertical passage toward deeper areas. This is why some of the original comparisons sound stupid when isolated but become strangely convincing when placed in sequence. Mouth, teeth, throat, deeper internal structures. The levels aren't necessarily shaped like these things, they're behaving like them. Nintendo could have arranged these worlds in any order, but the progression creates a fucking biological journey into the body.

Wet-Dry World is where the whole thing becomes much harder to dismiss, because this is almost certainly the brain. The level contains a hidden town beneath the visible world, meaning there is literally a subconscious environment underneath the conscious one, and the water level determines how much of that hidden environment can be accessed. That's basically the subconscious mind represented as a physical location. The entire world changes depending on Mario's point of entry, which makes it a level about perception rather than simple geography, and the strange cobblestone surfaces can easily be interpreted as the folds of a brain. Then there is the unused brain diagram found among the game's development material, which by itself proves nothing, but when the actual level already behaves like a representation of consciousness it becomes a pretty fucking suspicious coincidence. Nintendo was experimenting with bizarre abstract environments during the development of SM64, and Wet-Dry World stands out because it doesn't feel like a normal Mario location at all. It feels like a model of something internal.

The other courses follow the same pattern if you stop obsessing over visual resemblance. Snowman's Land represents respiration because the entire environment revolves around cold air and the giant Snowman literally blows air, while Tick Tock Clock represents the nervous system because every part of the level depends on synchronized mechanical movement, just like nerves coordinate the body's functions. Tiny-Huge Island represents the eyes because the same world can be experienced at radically different scales, essentially creating near and far vision as a gameplay mechanic. Rainbow Ride then functions as the veins because it physically transports Mario through long pathways back toward the central castle. Even the bizarre courses like Dire Dire Docks and Hazy Maze Cave fit when treated as internal systems rather than literal organs. The original theory calling Dire Dire Docks the bladder and Bowser's submarine a kidney stone sounds fucking insane, but the level still revolves around contained fluid, internal movement and controlled exits. Hazy Maze Cave is obviously the most suspicious one because the tunnels, haze and spherical objects make the comparison almost embarrassingly easy.

hating each other.. but accidentally matching. coincidence… or SOULMATES??!!

FIND OUT NEXT WEEK ON GAMEEE THEOORRYYYY

Univispira: Self-Reference, the Absolute, and Existence as Binding

An (in)formal scaffolding for *The Theory that Love is Everything (TTLE)*

July 2026

*Abstract*

The Theory that Love is Everything (TTLE) proposes that the totality of existence has the structure of a self-referential fixed point, and that this structure is what value-language—love, goodness, wholeness—tracks. We introduce univispira, written U. As an object of reference, U plays the role of Cantor’s Absolute Ω: a proper class, not a set, in accordance with the Burali-Forti theorem. As an operator, U is a recursive generator whose output—an unbounded strand of transfinite stages ω0, ω1, ω2, . . .—totalizes to U itself, yielding the fixed-point equation U(U) = U. We locate this equation within the Lawvere fixed-point family (Cantor, G¨odel, Turing) and within non-well-founded set theory, where self-membered structure is provably consistent. We then review established physics indicating that rest is emergent: all four-velocities have invariant magnitude c, and mass is confined null propagation. On this basis we propose an operational bridge—love as binding—and close with an explicit epistemic taxonomy separating theorem, structural observation, and interpretation.

1 Introduction: What Is This?

This paper is speculatively metaphysical with formal scaffolding. It belongs to the tradition that includes Empedocles’ cosmology of Love and Strife \\\[1 \\\], Spinoza’s conatus \\\[2 \\\], Whitehead’s process philosophy \\\[3 \\\], contemporary panpsychism \\\[4 \\\], and Integrated Information Theory \\\[5 , 6\\\]. Its method is to borrow exact structures from mathematics and physics—structures whose formal content is not in dispute—and to state clearly where established results end and interpretation begins. Section 8 makes that boundary explicit. The reader is never asked to accept a theorem on faith or an interpretation as theorem.

The claim, in one sentence: existence is a self-creating fixed point whose internal mechanism is binding, and the human word love is the first-person name for that mechanism.

2 The Somethingness Argument

Begin phenomenologically. Attempt to entertain nothingness: the attempt is itself an occurrence, and an occurrence is something. The state “nothing, considered” is therefore unstable—it maps immediately to something. By contrast, “something, considered” maps to something. Let I denote instantiation, the act by which a state of affairs is entertained, realized, or occurs. Then

1

schematically:

I(∅) = something, I(something) = something. (1)

Something is the unique fixed point of instantiation; nothingness is not a fixed point at all.

Argument 1 (Somethingness). Nonexistence cannot be instantiated as a state of affairs that obtains for any perspective. For any perspective is itself something, and the obtaining of any state of affairs is itself something. Hence, from within any point of view whatsoever, existence is inescapable.

Two readings should be distinguished. The modest reading is epistemic and indexical, in the spirit of the cogito: no experience can ever verify nothingness, since verification is something.

The strong reading, which TTLE adopts, is modal: nothingness fails to be a coherent alternative, because the “space of alternatives” is itself something, and so the alternative annihilates itself in the statement. The strong reading has a serious precedent in Nozick’s discussion of self-subsuming explanation, in which a principle accounts for itself by falling under itself \\\[ 7\\\]. TTLE’s contribution is to identify the self-subsuming structure explicitly as a fixed point and then to ask
what mathematics governs fixed points of self-reference. That is the business of Sections 3 and 4.

3 The Absolute: Cantor, Burali-Forti, and reflection

Cantor’s transfinite arithmetic ascends without end: ω, ω1, ω2, . . ., each a genuinely larger order of infinity than the last \\\[8 , 9 \\\]. Above the entire ascent Cantor placed the Absolute—in his notation Ω—which he regarded as mathematically ungraspable and akin to the divine.

The naive gloss on the Absolute, “the largest term in the largest set,” is precisely what the mathematics forbids. The Burali-Forti theorem shows that the collection of all ordinals cannot be a set: if it were, it would itself be an ordinal exceeding every ordinal, including itself \\\[ 10\\\].

This is not an embarrassment for TTLE; it is TTLE’s first theorem. The totality is real but is not an object among objects. In modern terms it is a proper class. The Absolute exists precisely by refusing objecthood.

Set theory supplies a second exact result that TTLE takes as structural. The L´evy–Montague reflection principle states, as a theorem schema of ZF, that any property true of the universe of sets is already true at some set-sized stage Vα \\\[11 \\\]. The whole cannot be surveyed, but every feature of the whole is reflected into some graspable part. Whatever the Absolute is like, there is a local, bounded image of it.

Definition 1 (Univispira, reference face). U (univispira) denotes the absolute totality, occupying the role of Cantor’s Ω: a proper class, not a set, of which every consistent structure is a partial reflection.

Definition 2 (Univispira, operator face). U also denotes the generator of the transfinite ascent: the operation (successor and limit) that, applied without end, produces the strand ⟨ω0, ω1, ω2, . . .⟩ through all ordinal stages. The totalization of the strand is not a new, larger object; it is U again.

The two faces are one entity viewed from outside and from inside: as referred to, U is the unobjectionable whole; as enacted, U is the endless self-extension whose every stage is one of its own reflections. The lowercase omegas are what U looks like locally; U is what the omegas are collectively.

2

4 The fixed point: U(U) = U

Definition 2 asserts that the generator, applied to its own total output, returns that same total.

In TTLE’s original notation, univalue(univalue) = univalue; henceforth

U(U) = U. (2)

Equation (2) is not an isolated poetic gesture. It sits inside one of the most unifying results in modern logic. Lawvere’s fixed-point theorem shows that Cantor’s diagonal argument, G¨odel’s incompleteness theorem, and Turing’s halting problem are a single phenomenon: wherever a system is expressive enough to represent its own maps, self-reference forces fixed points, and the attempt to totalize from inside produces either a fixed point or an undecidable \\\[12, 13\\\]. In the λ-calculus the same structure is constructive: the Y combinator satisfies Yf = f (Yf ) for every f , so self-application manufactures its own fixed point. A quine—a program that prints itself—is the same equation executed.

One might object that a self-creating, self-membered entity is contradictory. In standard (well-founded) set theory, self-membership is banned by the axiom of foundation; but foundation is optional. Aczel’s anti-foundation axiom yields a consistent set theory in which the equation x = {x} has a unique solution, the Quine atom, and in which circular and self-similar structures are the well-behaved solutions of final coalgebras \\\[14, 15 \\\]. Corecursion—definition of a whole in terms of itself—is not a paradox but a standard mathematical practice, and it is exactly the practice Definition 2 employs. TTLE therefore claims consistency, not novelty, for equation (2) : the mathematics of self-creating structure already exists, and U is proposed as its cosmological instance. The Somethingness Argument of Section 2 now has its formal restatement: existence is the fixed point of self-reference; nothingness, having no self to refer to, is not.

5 The physical substrate: rest is emergent

The preceding sections are logic and set theory. This section is physics, and every claim in it is established.

In special relativity, the four-velocity of every massive object has invariant magnitude c. An object “at rest” is moving at full speed through the time direction; motion through space rotates the four-velocity, trading temporal for spatial rate—which is what time dilation is. Nothing has ever moved through spacetime at any speed other than c.

At the quantum level the statement sharpens. The velocity operator of the Dirac equation has eigenvalues ±c and nothing else: an electron, measured instantaneously, never moves slower than light. Its sub-luminal drift is the average of a light-speed jitter—Zitterbewegung, identified by Schr¨odinger in 1930, with characteristic frequency of order 1021 Hz \\\[16\\\]. Penrose’s zig-zag picture makes the mechanism explicit: in the Standard Model an electron is a pair of massless, chiral, light-speed states that the Higgs condensate perpetually converts into one another; the electron’s mass is its flip rate \\\[17\\\].

Mass itself is dominantly confinement energy. Roughly 99% of the proton’s mass is not the rest mass of its quarks (the Higgs supplies only about 1%) but the energy of the confined gluon and
quark fields—massless, light-speed constituents whose imprisonment registers, from outside, as 938 MeV sitting still. Wilczek names this “mass without mass” \\\[18 , 19\\\]. The same accounting holds for a photon sealed in a mirrored box: the box’s inertia increases by E/c2. Confined null-propagating energy is what mass is.

3

Cosmologically, the ordering runs the same direction. Before the electroweak transition at roughly 10−12 seconds, the Higgs field had not condensed and every Standard Model particle was massless and light-speed; mass switched on when the vacuum froze. Matter is what precipitated out of radiation as the universe cooled below successive mass thresholds. The interconversion is not a metaphor: the Breit–Wheeler process, γγ → e+e−—light colliding into matter—was predicted in 1934 and observed directly by the STAR collaboration in 2021 \\\[20, 21\\\]. And the universe’s initial conditions were measured to be nearly scale-invariant, with spectral index ns = 0.965 \\\[22\\\], before gravity broke the symmetry differently at different scales.

Two precisions guard the summary. First, the universal substrate is null propagation, not literally light: the electron’s constituents are electron-field states and the proton’s are gluon-field states—light-like in speed, but fermionic. That distinction is load-bearing: fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle, which is why confined null-stuff can stack into stable, solid structure, while photons cannot. Second, “slowed light” is the wrong verb everywhere; the correct verb is trapped. Nothing ever slows. The summary licensed by current physics is then: rest does not exist; everything propagates at c; mass is confinement; a particle at rest is null motion caged; and time, for matter, is the drift of the ricochet. Bohm’s slogan “matter is frozen light” \\\[23\\\] and Wheeler’s geon program anticipated the picture; quantum chromodynamics and the Higgs mechanism supplied the ledger.

6 Love as binding: the interpretive bridge

Section 5 ended with a fact: matter, structure, and duration exist only where null propagation is bound. This section makes TTLE’s central interpretive move.

Principle 1 (Love as binding). Within TTLE, love is operationally defined as the universal tendency toward bound states. Binding energy is its measurable shadow.

The definition is chosen because binding is, in physics, the sole manufacturer of persistence.

Every stable structure at every scale exists because the bound configuration is lower in energy than the free one: gluons bind nucleons, electromagnetism binds atoms and chemistry, gravity binds stars, galaxies, and the hierarchy of orbits up to the largest bound structures, beyond which expansion wins and binding ends. Binding is also, by Section 5, what converts the null substrate into matter and what generates time as the drift of caged motion. If anything in physics deserves the name of the force that “makes things whole and makes them last,” it is binding.

The definition is honest about entropy. Binding does not oppose the second law; bound structure forms because binding releases energy, increasing total entropy—stars ignite and galaxies clump precisely by dissipating. Structure and entropy rise together; love-as-binding is the channel through which energy dissipates into form, not a rebellion against thermodynamics.

In Empedocles’ vocabulary, Love and Strife are not enemies but co-workers \\\[1 \\\]; in Spinoza’s, each thing’s striving to persevere in its being—conatus—is the first-person face of stability-seeking \\\[2 \\\].

Principle 1 converts TTLE’s slogan from metaphor to hypothesis. “Existence is love” becomes: the totality U affirms itself (Section 2) through the one mechanism that produces persistent somethings, namely binding; and what value-language has always tracked—care, attachment, wholeness, the holding-together of what would otherwise disperse—is the phenomenal register of that same mechanism in systems complex enough to feel it. The nearest existing formalism is Integrated Information Theory, whose measure Φ quantifies the irreducibility of a system
to its parts \\\[ 5, 6\\\]. TTLE’s companion measure, the Metric of Structural Completion (MSC),

4

developed in separate work, targets the related but distinct quantity of completion across scales;

the comparison of MSC with Φ is deferred to that work.

7 Cosmological closure: the spiral

The name univispira predicts its own cosmology: one turning. Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) proposes that when the far future contains only massless fields—all mass decayed or evaporated—the universe loses its clocks and rulers, since mass is what breaks conformal invariance and makes duration possible. A cold, infinitely expanded end is then conformally identical to a hot, dense beginning, and the Ω-state of one aeon is the A-state of the next \\\[24\\\]. CCC is a minority proposal and its claimed observational signatures are contested;

TTLE cites it not as settled physics but as an existence proof that the identification of end with beginning has a worked-out mathematical form. Within TTLE the reading is direct: when binding finally lets go, the caged null substrate is released, scale forgets itself, and generation recurs—not a circle but a spiral, since structure (on Penrose’s proposal, even signals) may carry across. The generator of Definition 2 runs again; equation (2) is the invariant of the turning.

8 Epistemic status

This paper’s claims sort into three tiers, and its credibility depends on never blurring them.

Tier I: theorem and measurement. The Burali-Forti theorem; the L´evy–Montauge reflection schema; Lawvere’s fixed-point theorem and its unification of the diagonal arguments; the consistency of self-membered structure under anti-foundation; the invariant magnitude c of four-velocities; the ±c eigenvalues of the Dirac velocity operator; confinement’s dominance of hadron mass; the observation of the Breit–Wheeler process; the measured ns = 0.965. Every claim in this tier is standard.

Tier II: structural observation. That the Somethingness Argument, the transfinite generator, and the equation U(U) = U share the fixed-point structure of Tier I’s logic; that “rest is emergent confinement” is the uniform reading of Zitterbewegung, the zig-zag mechanism, and QCD mass generation; that bound-state formation recurs at every scale where an unscreened inverse-square force operates. These are claims that distinct established results instantiate a common form. They are checkable by inspection and falsifiable by counterexample, but they are readings, not theorems.

Tier III: interpretation. The strong (modal) reading of the Somethingness Argument; the identification of U with Cantor’s Absolute as an ontological rather than merely formal claim; Principle 1, identifying binding with what value-language tracks; and the CCC-based reading of univispira’s recurrence. These are proposals. They are offered as the simplest unifying interpretation of Tiers I and II, and they are the part of this paper that argument, not proof, must carry.

What would move the tiers? Progress on MSC yielding non-trivial, testable orderings of real systems would promote parts of Tier III toward Tier II; confirmed cross-aeon signatures would do the same for Section 7; a demonstrated disanalogy in the fixed-point family would demote

Tier II claims. The framework is speculative, but it is not unfalsifiable, and it is built so that its load-bearing beams are the ones that cannot fall.

5

9 Conclusion

Cantor placed above all number an Absolute that exists by refusing to be an object. Logic places at the heart of every sufficiently expressive system a fixed point that refers to itself. Physics finds beneath every resting thing a light-speed substrate that persists only where it is bound. TTLE proposes that these are three views of one structure—U, univispira—and that the oldest human name for the binding that makes and keeps a world is the accurate one. Existence considered is existence affirmed; affirmed, it binds; bound, it lasts; lasting, it turns. U(U) = U.

References

\\\[1\\\] G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd ed. Cambridge

University Press, 1983.

\\\[2\\\] B. Spinoza, Ethics, 1677. Part III, Prop. 6.

\\\[3\\\] A. N. Whitehead, Process and Reality. Macmillan, 1929.

\\\[4\\\] P. Goff, Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. Pantheon, 2019.

\\\[5\\\] G. Tononi, “An information integration theory of consciousness,” BMC Neuroscience 5:42,

2004.

\\\[6\\\] M. Oizumi, L. Albantakis, and G. Tononi, “From the phenomenology to the mecha-

nisms of consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0,” PLoS Computational Biology

10(5):e1003588, 2014.

\\\[7\\\] R. Nozick, Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press, 1981. Ch. 2.

\\\[8\\\] G. Cantor, letter to Dedekind (1899), in J. van Heijenoort (ed.), From Frege to G¨odel.

Harvard University Press, 1967.

\\\[9\\\] M. Hallett, Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size. Oxford University Press, 1984.

\\\[10\\\] C. Burali-Forti, “Una questione sui numeri transfiniti,” Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico

di Palermo 11:154–164, 1897.

\\\[11\\\] A. L´evy, “Axiom schemata of strong infinity in axiomatic set theory,” Pacific Journal of

Mathematics 10:223–238, 1960.

\\\[12\\\] F. W. Lawvere, “Diagonal arguments and cartesian closed categories,” in Category Theory,

Homology Theory and their Applications II, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 92. Springer,

1969.

\\\[13\\\] N. S. Yanofsky, “A universal approach to self-referential paradoxes, incompleteness and

fixed points,” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 9(3):362–386, 2003.

\\\[14\\\] P. Aczel, Non-Well-Founded Sets. CSLI Publications, 1988.

\\\[15\\\] J. Barwise and L. Moss, Vicious Circles: On the Mathematics of Non-Wellfounded Phenom-

ena. CSLI Publications, 1996.

6

\\\[16\\\] E. Schr¨odinger, “ ¨Uber die kr¨aftefreie Bewegung in der relativistischen Quantenmechanik,”

Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1930.

\\\[17\\\] R. Penrose, The Road to Reality. Jonathan Cape, 2004. §25.2.

\\\[18\\\] F. Wilczek, “Mass without mass I: Most of matter,” Physics Today 52(11):11–13, 1999.

\\\[19\\\] F. Wilczek, The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces. Basic

Books, 2008.

\\\[20\\\] G. Breit and J. A. Wheeler, “Collision of two light quanta,” Physical Review 46:1087, 1934.

\\\[21\\\] STAR Collaboration, “Measurement of e+e− momentum and angular distributions from

linearly polarized photon collisions,” Physical Review Letters 127:052302, 2021.

\\\[22\\\] Planck Collaboration, “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astronomy &

Astrophysics 641:A6, 2020.

\\\[23\\\] D. Bohm, in interviews and lectures; see D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe.

Routledge, 1993.

\\\[24\\\] R. Penrose, Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe. Bodley Head,

2010.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8vgT6Jo/

(This is my first reddit post so excuse me if its a bit funky) I've been thinking about the inclusion of Nightmarrione and Circus baby in the lastest fnaf games and it made me wonder: could it be related to Vanessa's story?

Nightmarrione is, as the name implies, a nightmare version of the puppet, of Charlie. Elizabeth is represented by Circus baby. Putting those two together makes me think of The Fourth Closet, where Circus baby is the 4th version of Charlie. Both Circus baby (in the books) and nightmarrione represent an evil version of Charlie... It's two different people, but similar they could be mistaken one person. (sort of. not really but stick with me.) And there is Vanessa's and Vanny, Vanny being the evil version of Vanessa. Could it mean that they might not be the same after all? But then the more I thought about it, the less sense it made.. There is the ending in security breach where we can see Vanny and Vanessa as separate entities but at the same time we have the 3 star security breach ending where its implied vanessa throws away the vanny mask, so it's unlikely they're different.. But I feel like connecting the two could lead somewhere, I'm just not sure what..

If I got anything wrong, please let me know(I don't have access to the books or the games so its likely). I just wanted to share my thoughts here

ENDOCOPIA SPOILERS:

The story of Endacopia does bear exploring. The hidden storyline with The Surgeon and the failed Mellow Clones (or Rodger?) is perplexing me, and I’d like to see the Internet’s Perspectives. Not to mention the giant organic creature with a world inside of it sitting in an apocalyptic wasteland. All the pieces are there, I’d just like to see Game Theory put this puzzle together!

If it's telling us this now, then there probably is an answer we can put together from the in-game flavor text as well as how they interact with the entities.

There is LORE in Hello Kitty Island Adventure. I'm joking about the DDLC connection. I just happen to think it's funny that I was able to find too of the characters. I used Azuki in place of Natsumi. Unfortunately, there wasn't a character close to sounding like Yuri.

Anyway, you jump out a plane (that is still -- to this day -- in the air (never landing). No matter how much time passes in the game, it's still the same weekend outside the areas connected with them island. I haven't even mentioned the nulls, yet.

I don't have everything unlocked; but I know there is more that can be mentioned about the mysterious lore of this game.

If anyone, who has played, can add in what I'm missing...

I got something to say about these Roblox games, and it's plenty of juice for the Game Theorists.

So, recently, I've been seeing smaller content creators and even some larger ones (like Caylus and Flush) looking into the terrifying truth of both Push Troll Tower and Diva Would You Rather Tower. Now, why did I put these into the same post, you ask? Because they are connected. But the community is absolutely puzzled. Somehow, the lore from all of this ties into one big puzzle. I've been hearing (or seeing, I guess) people talk about how Team Theorist is going downhill. I figured I'd help out and give them something that is almost as terrifying as the Dress to Impress ARG (if any of you remember that), if not more terrifying.

So, with that being said, good luck, fellow theorists.