And they're nuts. Humanity has a solid evolutionary record on this planet.
You're essentially saying that the world is not an illusion because it's not an illusion. That's not an argument.
Like it or not, the simulation thesis, or the malicious demon thesis, or the veil of Maya, or the various theses of the various Gnostics, etc. basically hold that sensation itself is an illusion, so when you point to evolution (etc.), you demonstrate nothing. You need to demonstrate somehow that sensation is veridical, and that proof has eluded consensus for quite sometime.
Viruses. In English, at least. In Latin, it would be vira. Third declination, not second.
And while I can at least understand that people who don't understand Latin but somehow learned that -us becomes -i in plural (yes, if it's 2nd and masculine instead of neuter), where the fuck does that second "i" come from?
Your answer is confusing, even though the result is correct.
Morphologically speaking, "vira" would be the proper plural precisely because "virus" is a second (not third) declension neuter noun.
Yet, it "virus" like "water" is uncountable so this plural is unattested.
But why do we always end up in this same Latin grammar and philology lesson?
Barnes and Noble, in my experience, does not run book stores but campus stores.
Except at the beginning of the semester, there are no books available for sale at my BN-run mid-major store.
Well, there is an ignored rack of faculty-authored books....
What you don't seem to care about though is the fascination with the idea that numbers, in whatever base, express reality.
Working through "the relationships between digits" is simply a primitive form of a deeper insight.
Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking. -- Jerome Lettvin