/lit/ - Literature

>>6371140
>2+2=4 no matter what species you are or which star you orbit, that's a fact and we phrased it with language.

"Welcome to universe-sim7, human2. Unfortunately, despite it appearing three dimensional to you, you are actually in a non-euclidean five dimensional simulation reality that looks like pic related. We tried your 1=1 as an axiom, but every attempt at empirical observation from our greater perspective meant that items we were using for reference, say 1 cat = 1 cat, turned out to be completely false as there are a variable amount of particles spanning along additional dimensions that you, with your tiny human mind, can't detect. In actual reality 1 is never 1.

Also, despite you thinking you are real, you are actually a simulation of a brain created by us. You can't remember it, but the language you're using is entirely your creation, programmed over thousands of what you perceive of as years, and these bizarre semantic symbols that you call numbers are only truly comprehensible to you. We have our best researchers trying to understand your perceived map of reality.

Well done, though, the linguistic map you invented to describe what you think of as your surroundings looks quite impressive. Totally flawed, as you lack most of the variables, but still impressive.

>>5064617
>You wouldn't say that it's possible for 2 =/= 2.
Of course I would. 2 = 2 is not objectively verifiable.

"Welcome to 'reality', mortal. Unfortunately, despite it looking three dimensional to you, we are in a non-euclidean five dimensional reality that looks like pic related. We tried your 2 =2 as an axiom, but every attempt at empirical observation meant that items we were using for reference, like 2 cats = 2 cats, turned out to be completely false as there are a variable amount of what you could only understand as a form of "sub-atomic particle" spanning along additional dimensions that you, with your tiny human mind, can't observe. Here in reality 2 is never 2.

You can't remember it, but the language you're using is entirely your creation, and these bizarre semantic symbols that you call numbers are only truly comprehensible to you. We have had our best researchers trying to understand your perceived interpretation of reality though."