"Let us look at the question of reality's limitations.

We can safely assume that those limitations are either arbitrary or non-arbitrary.

The existence of arbitrary limitations strikes us as absurd. The existence of no limitations is equally implausible.

Therefore we must assume that those limitations are non-arbitrary.

Therefore it follows that there must be (a) necessary truth(s) that dictate nature's limitations.

It's a necessary truth that sentient well-being is infinitely more valuable than everything else. There are no other claims of necessity that come even close.

(A meaningful way to look at this would be to realize that sentient beings are the only meaningful expression of the uni/multiverse. If all meaningful expressions of the uni/multiverse point to this truth, then it must be a universal truth. )

Therefore the universe must be limited only by it's goodness towards sentient beings.

Finally, it turns out that objective moral values are the only limitation to reality.

(And also important - the pursuit of Ethics is perfectly meaningful.)"

I'm acutely aware that this will receive a lot of criticism. I would like to say in this regard that I simply want to present a meaningful idea in a simplistic and understandable way, and not a rigorous proof of any kind.

I hope that some people will find it valuable.

Edit: Furthermore - I expect that people would agree that "arbitrary limitations or no limitations strike us as absurd", but will point out that this does not rule them out.

My answer is that I preferred to present a more simplistic argument, instead of delving into the task of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, why reality shouldn't have arbitrary or no limitations. I do believe that there is sufficient weight to the argument as it is, without unnecessarily complicating it.

Edit2 (I posted this and RGT and this was my reply to a question) :

"I'm focusing acutely at the question of whether reality has limitation and if it does - whether they are necessary or arbitrary. I believe a good case can be made that the case for no limitations or arbitrary limitations is weak. My weak point is that here i'm presenting largely a proof by intuition. I do think that a more logical argument can be made, but as I said - I wanted to present an idea and not a rigorous proof, as such proofs are notoriously difficult, while I think that the intuitive appeal of the idea is reason enough to point it out.

At the very least - opponents of this theory will be hard pressed to defuse the notion that sentience's well being is infinitely more important than anything else and should be causally sufficient to override any arbitrary limitations that reality might come up with.

Or .. at the very least someone might point out a good candidate for a limitation, but I'm hard pressed as to imagine one. My point is that there are no good candidates for a limitation to reality, besides sentience's well-being, which is inherently and objectively meaningful."

if 'limitation' is the answer then there can never be 'no limitation'.

If 'no limitation' is the answer then there can be 'limitation' as well.

No it doesn't.

To me, this 'proof' is too poorly constructed to be meaningful. It's nothing more than a series of assertions strung together with a logical fallacy or two. It's not even clear to me how you are defining the relevant terms.

I don't mind this as a hypothesis. If some of the big hitters here can strike it down quickly then so be it. If not, perhaps it's worth sharpening up.

I'm not sure I quite understand it on the first read. I get the part claiming we're special, but not how that makes reality all peachy. If anything, it seems reality kinda bites, but that could just be the spoiled and pretentious 90's kid in me speaking. Maybe try and clarify what a benevolent reality means, OP.

why?

What points to it.

This premise is highly contestable by some physicalists who don't subscribe to the notion of the intrinsic value of life. It's also not coincidental that these same folks are concurrently moral subjectivists, but that's another matter.