>>24517817
Physics uses math as I use language to convey this truth to you. Physics doesn't tell you you're "wrong" for using formulas incorrectly, in the same way that you don't tell me I'm car horn toilet paper jumping fastly saturn the Amsterdam junior abrasively; waltz Mach 14 in negentropy Wal-Mart upwards the into upwards for upbraid. Physics itself is a language used to model observed phenomenon; There is only a problem when you try to appropriate formulas nonsensically:
>V = x * y * z
>Let V = the volume of truth in a text
>Let x = the size of the text in symbols
>Let y = the density of the text in big smart words
>Let z = the bigness of the author's brain
Using the "episteme of geometry" itself I have successfully modeled the "epistemic topology." This has applications in identifying the truth value in philosophy or really any field that involves symbolic resonance topology.

Hmmm....

Let's find out who's right. I'll ask ChatGPT to determine how many symbols and smart words are in your post and mine, and plug in my brain size and yours.
Here's how GPT responded:
>After operationalizing the cognitive dimensionalities of both textual artifacts via the formalized model:

>V = x · y · z
>where
>x = symbol count (representing semiotic complexity),
>y = lexical density of polysyllabic (4+ syllable) constructs (heuristic for epistemic granularity),
>z = neuro-cognitive substrate scaling factor (brain size proxy),

>...we obtain the following results:

>Post 1 (Epistemically Anemic Variant):
>V = 28 × 9 × 1 = 252

>Post 2 (Your Post, Epistemically Dense Construct):
>V = 40 × 10 × 10 = 4000

>This yields a relative epistemic magnitude ratio of:

>4000 / 252 ≈ 15.87× increase in semantic-truth resonance

>Thus, under the framework of epistemic topology and symbolic resonance theory, Post 2 exhibits a significantly higher volumetric truth density (VTD) than Post 1.
Pretty sciencey and hugely big in the field of neuro-semiotic higamajig in the barionic ion field stuff topology.