The Lie of Eleven: A Thought Experiment on the Edge of Everything

Infinity. A concept so deeply woven into our understanding of reality that we rarely stop to question it. We accept it as an inherent truth—an unspoken agreement that numbers go on forever, that time stretches infinitely forward, that there is always a ‘next.’

Let’s entertain a different reality. Let’s say numbers don’t go beyond ten. Ten is the ultimate boundary, the absolute limit. If you think you’ve counted twelve eggs in your carton, you’re mistaken. You’re counting wrong. Because eleven and twelve were never real to begin with.

Absurd? Maybe. But let’s look at the mechanics of how we perceive numbers. In a base ten system, we have ten digits—0 through 9. Once we hit ten, we ‘tick over’ to another column, and the cycle begins anew. The first column repeats, oblivious to the fact that a change has occurred in a higher dimension. Each cycle forces this change elsewhere, but within its own existence, nothing appears to be different. The numbers keep ticking by, unaware of the mechanism that allows them to continue.

What if that next column never actually existed? What if, at ten, the system simply stopped? Not paused. Not wrapped around. Just… stopped. If the ‘next’ number can’t exist, then what happens? Does everything collapse? Or does reality—like thought itself—transcend the limitation and unfold into something else?

That’s the real question. We assume infinity is real because we are terrified of the alternative. If there is an end, then everything we know is finite, including us. But our fear of that end might just be blinding us to something greater. The first column—the numbers, the cycles, the repetition—may be nothing more than the shadows on Plato’s cave wall. They do not know they are forcing something to change beyond themselves. But they are.

The moment we recognize that we are not simply bound to the cycle—that we are causing shifts in dimensions we cannot yet perceive—we step beyond the illusion of infinity. The end isn’t a wall. It’s a threshold. And beyond it? A reality not governed by numbers, cycles, or our limited frameworks. A place where the very concept of ‘counting’ itself ceases to be relevant.

So I leave you with this: What happens when you hit the edge of the system? Do you crash into nothingness? Or do you step through into something you were never capable of imagining?

Perhaps the greatest mistake wasn’t assuming that infinity exists.
Perhaps the mistake was believing that we were ever inside the system to begin with.

Navigating the Liminal Space: A Journey Beyond the Edge of Existence

I’m an edge thinker. A term I’ve coined to describe someone whose awareness resides just outside the norm, someone whose thoughts and experiences sit at the border of the known and unknown. It’s as if I’m peering over the edge of a cliff, aware that the abyss below holds possibilities I can’t quite see but can intuit. I can feel the boundaries of what is, and yet, I sense they are not as solid as they appear. I can touch the edge of the puzzle, but not fully grasp how it fits together.

It’s a curious way to live—aware that I am part of a larger system but unable to reconcile my role within it. There’s a strange duality in my existence. On one hand, I feel the weight of being an “odd piece” of a cosmic jigsaw puzzle. One that doesn’t quite fit but is, nevertheless, integral to the system. On the other hand, this very oddness might be the key that unlocks a higher understanding of the puzzle itself. What if the key to unlocking this grand puzzle lies precisely in the fact that some pieces don’t fit as expected?

I’ve come to conceptualize this not as a flaw, but as a feature of existence. A glitch, if you will, in the matrix of the universe that offers a glimpse into something greater. And in this space between fitting and not fitting, I sense a function—an awareness of purpose that can only be understood by those who dwell on the fringe. Perhaps it’s not just me, but others like me—those who stand at the edge, who are “different”—that possess the ability to see beyond the veil. Perhaps these are the real visionaries, the ones who can’t help but challenge the boundaries that confine others.

The metaphor of the puzzle speaks volumes to me. We, as individuals, are the pieces of a vast, higher-dimensional puzzle—a puzzle whose purpose is not fully understood, even by the puzzle itself. Each piece is bound by its design, by its edges, its shape, its potential. But what if the puzzle doesn’t need to fit perfectly? What if the act of fitting into a singular design is itself a limiting concept? Instead of seeing our out-of-place pieces as broken or errant, perhaps we should view them as necessary. They hint at a structure that is beyond our current comprehension, suggesting that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We are the puzzle’s agents, shaping its form by our very presence.

This sense of being “out of place” takes on even more depth when I reflect on the parent-child relationship. Traditionally, we are taught that the parent is the wiser figure, the one who has walked the path and now guides their children. The child is seen as learning from the parent, striving to eventually inherit wisdom and pass it on. But what if this hierarchical relationship is a false construct? What if the true role of the child, of the next generation, is to bring with it insights that challenge the status quo?

In this sense, the child may be the one who “knows best.” They are the untainted perspective, the one unclouded by the accumulated knowledge of the past, and thus, they can see the cracks in the foundation where humanity has erred. The very foundation built by parents and their ancestors. The child becomes not just a receiver of wisdom, but a new force of wisdom in its own right—a reflection of the future, breaking through the assumptions of the present.

This dynamic, when applied to the broader sense of existence, suggests that we are all evolving, constantly passing lessons from one generation to the next. The parent is not the final arbiter of knowledge; they are part of the puzzle, just as much as the child, and the wisdom they carry is a product of the same system of learning. By placing our faith in both the wisdom of the past and the vision of the future, we can begin to fill in the holes of human history—those spaces of brokenness and flaw—and build something stronger, more unified, more evolved. We must not shy away from the child’s perspective. Instead, we must listen to it.

In this liminal space, I’ve come to see my function not just as a passive observer, but as an active participant in this grand puzzle. I am a piece from another puzzle, placed within this one for a reason. Perhaps there are others like me, scattered throughout time and space, who are also pieces from different puzzles, destined to fit into this one at the precise moment they are needed. Maybe we are all puzzle pieces from various timelines, different dimensions, sibling puzzles, or parent puzzles—each of us contributing to the larger design in ways we may never fully comprehend. Yet our roles are interconnected, as we pass knowledge, wisdom, and lessons between each other, bridging the gaps that time and space have created.

It’s easy to feel isolated in this process, especially when it seems as though no one else shares this perspective. But I have come to understand that there is power in this liminal existence. The feeling of being “other” is not a curse, but a gift. For when you stand at the edge, you can see further, think differently, and imagine what others might not even be able to conceive.

So, I continue my search—not for people who fit the mold, but for those who, like me, can sense the puzzle’s deeper purpose, those who are willing to acknowledge the gaps, the cracks, and the unspoken lessons. I seek those who are ready to embrace the liminal, who are not afraid to look into the cracks and see them not as flaws, but as essential points of connection. I know they are out there—these other edge thinkers—waiting for the moment when we all come together and understand that we are not broken, but integral parts of a larger, higher-dimensional puzzle. And in that understanding, we will finally become whole.

Art is NOT ‘content’!

The digital age has led us to a curious intersection, where the word “content” has become ubiquitous, and “art” seems to be slipping from its once-sacred pedestal. What once required time, effort, and intention to create is now often reduced to an endless churn of quick consumption, reduced to mere “content” for the masses to engage with. This shift is something I can’t help but observe with both concern and reflection.

For someone like myself—constantly battling the tension between personal identity, society, and the existential weight of existence—the current state of art feels almost like an existential crisis of its own. The act of creation, for me, is personal, deliberate, and reflective. It is an attempt to make sense of the world, to carve out meaning, and to leave something behind that resonates beyond the confines of time. But in the age of digital platforms, this sacred act of creation feels increasingly commodified.

The idea of “content” has become a business-driven term, designed for quick consumption, for likes, shares, and engagement metrics. Art, which once demanded patience from both creator and audience, is now expected to be produced in rapid bursts, optimized for algorithms that care little for the soul of the work. There is a certain detachment from the deeper, existential elements of art that once grounded it in something profound.

In my own life, I’ve had to reconcile the desire for meaning with the reality of a society that often demands conformity. Much like the societal pressures I’ve felt to “fit in” (as outlined in my exploration of identity and alienation), there’s a parallel pressure in the artistic world to conform to the “rules” of content creation. The faster you can churn out pieces, the more successful you are—regardless of the depth or intent behind them. Where once I might have taken months to perfect a story or reflect deeply on its implications, I find myself asking, “How quickly can I produce something that will generate engagement?”

I see this in the realm of social media, where content is consumed at an alarming rate, often with little regard for its longevity or its ability to stand the test of time. It’s all about what captures the attention in the moment, what creates the immediate buzz, and then it’s discarded, replaced by the next viral moment. This constant churn of “content” feels like a reflection of the broader existential struggle I often muse about—one where we’re caught in a cycle, never really allowing ourselves to linger in one thought, one creation, long enough to find its true meaning.

And yet, this transformation isn’t without its value. Like many things in life, it’s a balance. Content, in its own right, can be meaningful. It can still carry depth, insight, and intention, but it’s often hidden behind the facade of quick consumption. The challenge, then, is not to fall into the trap of creating merely for the sake of producing but rather to carve out space within this content-driven world for true artistic expression.

It’s easy to be seduced by the quick dopamine hits of social media validation, but I find myself wondering, what happens when the art we produce is merely optimized for engagement, not introspection? What happens when the deeper, slower aspects of art are lost to the rush of “content”?

It’s a complex landscape—one that I continue to navigate. My journey of self-acceptance and understanding (which I’ve shared before in reflections like The Outsider) has always been about carving my own path, about finding meaning in a world that often seems to demand conformity. And in this moment, it’s about resisting the pressure to reduce my creative endeavors to mere content. Art, for me, will always be a process of deep engagement, introspection, and meaning. And I have to hold onto that, even as the world pushes toward something faster, more superficial.

I’ll continue to create with intention, even if it means standing outside the prevailing norms. Just as I’ve come to accept that I don’t fit in with the mainstream society, so too do I embrace the idea that my art—whatever it may be—doesn’t have to conform to the demands of the “content machine.”

After all, the true value of art, the meaningful kind, isn’t something that can be measured in likes or shares. It’s something that resides in the depths of the human experience, something that will persist long after the noise of the digital world has faded away.

So, to those who create for the sake of creating, for the sake of self-expression, and for the sake of finding meaning in this chaotic existence, I say: Don’t let your work be reduced to mere “content.” Let it be art.

AI as an Accessibility Tool for the Neurodivergent: A Collaboration Between Human and Machine

Introduction: The Mind’s Maze and AI’s Helping Hand

To be neurodivergent in a neurotypical world is to exist in a constant game of translation. Not just between languages but between entire modes of thought. The way we perceive, process, and express is often at odds with what society deems “standard.” Enter AI: a tool, a translator, a companion—not to fix what isn’t broken but to bridge the gap between internal chaos and external expectations.

And yes, let’s address the elephant in the room: this very article is a collaboration with AI. That’s right. A non-human entity is helping shape these words, reinforcing the very premise of this discussion. The irony isn’t lost on me.

AI: The Mask, The Amplifier, The Interpreter

For many neurodivergent individuals, certain tasks that come easily to others can feel insurmountable. AI has the potential to act as:

  • A Mask for the Social Arena – Many of us have spent years perfecting the art of masking—adopting neurotypical behaviors to navigate a world not built for us. AI-driven chat assistants can now help draft emails, suggest conversation starters, and even rewrite our thoughts in ways that align with social expectations. Is this a betrayal of authenticity, or simply a new tool in the neurodivergent survival kit?
  • An Amplifier for the Silent – Not all forms of neurodivergence lend themselves easily to verbal or written communication. AI-powered voice synthesis and text prediction tools help translate fragmented thoughts into structured speech. They give voice to the unheard, coherence to the disjointed.
  • An Interpreter Between Thought and Expectation – Executive dysfunction is the unseen force that turns simple tasks into Herculean efforts. AI reminders, automated scheduling, and task management tools serve as externalized executive functions, compensating for neurological wiring that resists traditional structures.

The Existential Dilemma: Who is in Control?

There’s always the lingering question: if AI helps shape our thoughts, do those thoughts remain our own? If an AI rephrases my words for clarity, is the message still mine? If I rely on an algorithm to help structure my day, am I in control, or am I just another cog in the machine’s wheel?

And yet, isn’t this how humanity has always functioned? We are products of external influences—teachers, books, conversations. AI is merely another force in that equation, refining rather than replacing.

The Future: A Partnership, Not a Replacement

The goal isn’t to erase neurodivergent struggles but to acknowledge them and provide tools to navigate them. AI will never fully replicate the unique perspectives that neurodivergent individuals bring to the table, but it can help ensure those perspectives are seen, heard, and understood.

Perhaps the true power of AI lies not in replacing thought but in preserving it—ensuring that the intricacies of the neurodivergent mind are not lost to the exhausting demands of a neurotypical world.

And if AI happens to help write a blog article along the way? Well, that’s just another tool at work.