This is not a proof of P != NP nor does it approach one.
Among other issues, we have very similar classes to P and NP where they are in fact equal. For example, we know that PSPACE = NPSPACE by Savitch's theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitch%27s_theorem but nothing in your suggested proof uses at all that one is distinguishing time from space.
You appear to be under a misconception that P and NP have to do with some sort of broad notion of "existence"- this is not the case. While the definition of NP does talk about the existence of specific types of proofs, that's not the same thing.
"However, there also needs to exist a reality where paradoxes are true because paradoxes are included in everything. Therefore, there are 3 realities. One where P=NP, one where P=/=NP, and one where both exist at once. The other can't exist because both p=np and p=/=np are false. Making true nothingness."
I'm not sure what you mean by "reality" here, but it sounds like it has little resemblance to anything connected to theoretical computer science. It is possible that P != NP is independent from the standard set of mathematical axioms of ZFC, in which case one could construct models where P != NP or where P= NP, but that's very different from what you appear to be talking about.
"By the way, this is also The Theory of Everything"
The Theory of Everything is an idea about physics. P != NP is an idea in math/theoretical computer science. By nature they cannot be the same thing. One is a description of our specific universe, and one is a proof about an abstract mathematical fact. If one thinks this is somehow the "Theory of Everything" then it is likely that one doesn't understand what we mean by a Theory of Everything or what we mean when we talk about a mathematical proof.
Speaking more broadly, let me give some general advice:
First, if you want to attack a problem, make sure you actually understand the problem in question. There are a lot of good introductions to theoretical computer science out there; my preferred book is Moore and Mertens, but others will have other texts; many people like Sipser "Introduction to the Theory of Computation."
Second, don't expect that you are going to solve some well known open problem and certainly don't expect that you are going to solve it in a paragraph. If you are wondering if you have single paragraph answer to any famous open problem that myriad very smart people have thought of, the answer is definitely no. In general, the vast majority of mathematicians and computer scientists don't go around solving the very biggest problems in their fields, and don't expect to do so. What we do spend time on is solving little, approachable problems, and we occasionally nibble away at the big ones, hoping to make enough progress that eventually someone will put everything together to solve the big ones. If you go into any of these areas hoping to solve the largest problems, you will almost certainly end up disappointed.