SCP-7079 does or does not exist. This file is a placeholder / an actual SCP. It is tangible but it is incorporeal. It is you and it is me, both, and neither.

Billith

DELETIONS 0 : C H I A S M A
Written by Billith.
Special thanks to Lt Flops for the original text scrambling code found modified below.

Do not edit this file or change its location. The slot and described text are placeholders that exist purely for parity checking and internal systems analysis for edge-case anomalies of a distinct variety. Not only is there no reason to edit the file (as no personnel are assigned to this designation), this document is a template, and in all likelihood, any references to this designation found elsewhere are erroneous, with the described anomaly being similarly nonexistent.

DESIGNATION: 7079

LEVEL:N/A
NOT APPLICABLE

ABBERATION STATUS:
EXTANT-NON-EXTANT

NUANCE: none
{$secondary-class}

DISRUPTION: absolute
N/A

RISK: to self or others
N/A

link to memo

Item#: {$item-number}

Level3

Containment Class:
{$container-class}

Secondary Class:
{$secondary-class}

Disruption Class:
{$disruption-class}

Risk Class:
{$risk-class}

link to memo

ON THE NATURE OF CONTAINMENT IN REGARDS TO AN ANOMALY THAT COULD BE SCP-7079: SCP-7079 does or does not exist. Containment procedures and descriptors/identifiers with certain terms listed in reference to an anomalous designation of this type may or may not hypothetically reinforce the continued existence of the anomaly in question, which does or does not exist. It may or may not be necessary to interject any potentially certain statement regarding SCP-7079's assigned anomaly, whatever it may be, were it to exist, with diluting or vagueifying statements. Due to the possible nature of this so-called anomaly, the presence of such statements may or may not be indicative of the existence of said nebulous "anomalous designation", which can and cannot be meaningfully confirmed.1

This document is to be kept as a placeholder23 in the slot for which it was chosen, and must not deviate from this distinction at any time.

SPECIFICATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS, OF SORTS: SCP-7079 does or does not exist. If it were to exist, which is unknown at this time, it would likely4 be an anomaly focused on a probabilistic or non-probabilistic effect triggered by some vector perhaps implied to be present in the standard formatting and flow of an """"SCP Document"""", necessitating atypical semantics to avoid such things.5 Despite this, it is unknown if it is known if any such effects have been confirmed to a satisfactory degree at time of writing. It is only known what may or may not be acceptable verbiage, and the degree by which this is known to be true is unknown. Thus, this particular choice of language or any others encountered throughout the document are none or more of the following:

inherently meaningful statements through which helpful data must be derived
asemic or otherwise meaningless statements, languages, or formats6
any statement which may function as, present itself as, or provide an exception to any combination of the above
                7

THIS SECTION IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

YEP, STILL BLANK

CONTAINMENT STATUS: ⚠️ CONTAINED

SHOW CURRENT STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS

thought continuum would be shown below.

Ignore any results that are shown below; they are irrelevant to the existence of SCP-7079, which, I figure you know by now, is or is not extant, now and forever, or until such time that it isn't true.

ADDENDUM 7079-1: EXPERIMENTAL DATA

NOTE: SCP-7079 and its related phenomena may or may not have been subjected to a series of cross-tests with SCP-2719. Honestly, I don't know what this section is doing here; seems unlikely that we'd ever approve this kind of testing and even so, would you actually believe it?

Pointer
Outcome

SCP-2719's containment area
Was inside.

SCP-7079
Went inside. Or didn't.

SCP-7079's existence
Went inside.

Chest tightening
Became inside.

Shortness of breath
Went inside. Inside distressed.

Intrusive thoughts about mistakes made in high school
Went inside. Inside dies.

A stranger
Went inside.

Inside
Became inside.

Spiraling
Went inside.

Someone who isn't me
Went outside.

Agoraphobia
Went inside.

SCP-7079's existence
Became inside.

Universal fear about the stability of the human race as a whole
Became inside.

External factors
Went inside.

Anxiolytic
Went inside.

A second stranger
Was outside.

Anxiolytic
Went inside.

Anxiolytic
Went inside.

Anxiolytic
Went inside.

Worries
Went outside.

DISCOVERY: SCP-7079 may not exist, and if that is the case, a fact which probably remains unknown and unlikely to be discovered, this section would be completely useless because, as stated, SCP-7079 may not exist. It might, though. It might not, but it might.
If it were to exist, which is an irrelevant hypothetical considering it can/cannot and will/will not be known, to you or to anyone and you and everyone, it could be suspected to have not been discovered at all, or perhaps discovered by personnel of atypical configuration, necessitating this document be conveyed in its current form.

That's my cue.

The grounds of Synecdoche (Research Station Synecdoche, but you can just call it Synecdoche) are not like your typical Foundation site. Or at least, so I've heard. I don't know what a "typical Foundation site" is, even though I've seen many. You'd be surprised.

While I could try to explain how the inner chambers of Synecdoche turn inwards like spirals, I will not. I could mention that the floors are made of logical swiss cheese, that is to say they have more logical gaps than your swiss cheese has holes, yet I refuse. Such trivialities serve no purpose to anyone other than Surrealistics, and even that much cannot be said. Purpose, a fickle thing, is not found on agnostics. Surrealistics don't need it. We only need Perspective, and separation from these things creates Perspective.

This day was the first in a long while I'd left Synecdoche, that spiral-room-cheese-floor secure site. It's comfier than you'd think, especially with Fourfold as the primary alternative. It's like the Four Seasons. I presume. Never been, but that's never stopped me from envisioning a hotel containing all four seasons. Seems pretty neat.

Anyway, I'd been assigned a mission, and that's why I am here. "Here", being not "there", Synecdoche, being not "elsewhere", elsewhere. I was sent "here" to recover an agent from "elsewhere" and am relaying this info to "here", you, not "there" or "elsewhere". It's all rather jarring, but given that jarring is quite common and inoffensive to Surrealistics, it was a comforting feeling. Besides, it's not every day you get to meet an agent that doesn't exist. Or, at least, didn't exist. What do you call something that doesn't not exist, but also can't be labelled as existent? I called this one a Deletions agent. N/A, actually. Personnel file says their name is N/A. Pretty unique name, don't you think?

It's not every day you get to meet an agent that doesn't not not exist. It's a little known fact that the only thing separating Nonexistence from Existence is a healthy dose of realistic logical realism. Surrealistics lack that sort of compass entirely, but we're not exactly known to work with other departments, and we certainly don't mesh well with departments like Deletions. We just bump into each other's nonlogical/non-non-existent shoulders on occasion, spilling whatever we're handling at the time, all over the good rug. It's always right underneath, that rug. I don't know why, but it is.

Still, it's not every day you get to meet an agent that doesn't not not not exist. If only I could find this agent. Is that too much to ask?

I mean, I did find traces. They're coded, either too logically for a Surrealistic or far too nonsensically for me to parse them out. It was a reasonable and noble attempt at communication. But this crossroads is far greater an impasse than either of us knew. See for yourself. In fact, I'll join you.

M
A
K
E

I
T

S
T
O
P
.

【_】
【x】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【x】
【_】

【_】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【x】

【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【x】

【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】

【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】

【_】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】

【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【_】

【x】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【x】

【_】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】

【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】

【x】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【x】
【_】
【_】
【x】
【_】
【x】
this
is8

N
O
.

why???9

The Ethics Committee would just like to say you're doing a great job n' all, but it also doesn't understand what purpose it serves being here. Please explain why The Ethics Committee is here and why it has thoughts that are not its own.
Please.

Hmmm. Just ignore that. I don't think it matters.

On the other hand, this seems like it matters, but I'm not one for gauging the matter of various matters, and that's what's the matter. You know?

CONTINUITY

DISPARITY

Excerpt: Interview 7079-0.0

NFCGQ
MKETZ,
ESN?EW

CSRWYH
AYXDKL
BSPEIN.

DIMH'P
ZNAKER
HAYYSR

NMRNAG
UROE.
PHTBCR

EMVZNE
UAEEPSK
SBHTD

DMKNMRP
RTZTBN
KDAXN.

VZVIR
HTLA
SLLDZUQ.

DIDICH
DTRHT
LTKMRT

UOTRLS
LKATS
WRKA.

TSWRVZTA?
VZTADS
VAWUNAK?!

EAWGOEX-
OVRAWI!
DSY'HDZU

AZSYNO
MPH.DQ
NA'UXFE

CRKA.V
ARUDZM
RHGUXIG

EEKVOXR
UPHCNT.E
EHPHSF

UNDYTW
PSNQFE
PEVSRU

ASCREDK
UAYTPY
HMOA.ZO

XNIESB
RDZTAQE
TUOEXH.F

ATCMRN
UFAAGR
HOHUFE.V

TNDSY'H
KICHIWK
BEXUQPX?

[DZEZROVR
UQNATXA
ZAYIHAH

UXFEPHAS
KXMRDNR
OGKT.EH

HLMK,KMR
QEPHIVTE
KWTZVZN

EVAWUTZA
EILWS-GF
UEHHXHCH

KWXMKK
MRDZNE,K
PKSEHG?A

WO,QEAY
GNEEVZT
AVARUA

ELLLAPH.]
[DZKUKX-E
SWSYHKL

LLDAYOR
HKWSLDI
AEADROOS

EMMHEE
GNTEHN
QHNAWI.]

[EHL,AFW
AETSDZT
A'AVTEPE

KHAHSH
RHTLSL,ROQ
HNKDZNA.]

[OSEMZM
Y'HOWNEA
SIAAHU

ZHQEN.]
[DZOEX
HTSAHD

XNA,QEL
L…][AML
UTXMRTU

TEEHGR
YFVAXH.]
help

S
H
A
M
E

D
R
I
F
T

V
O
U
G
Z

P
L
Y
B
W

K
N
Q
C
X

A
T
O
N
E

F
K
D
U
P

B
R
H
M
W

L
I
V
G
Q

Z
Y
C
S
X

ADDENDUM 7079-2: INTERPRETIVE ANTISTENOGRAPHICS
Steadfast will. Conchord grapes. Parsnip. Ischemia. Surface waves. No Time like the present. Aromatics. Fortitude. Independent Living. Egregore. Gone home. Ordinary. Ostrich. Delaware. Tank top. Rumination. Yogurt. Threadbare. Homebound. Ornithon. Umpire. General Hamesthetics.1011

Just a reminder: SCP-7079 does or does not exist. If it did exist, which is unknowable, probably, The Ethics Committee would ask what it was up to next Friday. SCP-7079 would probably be a model and would most likely say yes to seeing a movie, because The Ethics Committee cleans up real nice.

…

Oh. These don't seem even remotely relevant, I can't comprehend most this stuff, anyway. We should keep moving.

ACCESS RECOVERED DOCUMENTS 7079-A-92

I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY

INTERNAL BRIEFING/IV: Progress Report

Sr. Researcher J. Anselm Harkness, Outreach Liaison, Department of Metaphysics, Narrativistics Division.
In Association With:
          , DEPARTMENT NOT FOUND
              , DEPARTMENT NOT FOUND
     , DEPARTMENT NOT FOUND
      , DEPARTMENT NOT FOUND

Excerpt from Weekly Debrief, THE ERUDITION PROJECT:

[BEGIN TRANSCRIPT]
"Hello, again. The–I swear speaking to an empty room doesn't get any less bizarre, it's kind of strange giving this talk to a bunch of unfilled seats, feels like a waste of time–Ah, sorry if that came off as insensitive. However much you don't want to be here, even if you are technically not here, I don't want to be here even more so. I'll try not to let my sunny disposition get in the way of these meetings.
[several second pause]
Right. [coughs] Where do we begin today? The data procured from your department has been invaluable once again. Given you non-interactive folks have the best luck with studying this phenomena when we cannot, your assistance is quite literally putting Fundamental Narrativistics at the forefront of modern Narrative Physics, a branch of Natural Sciences that wouldn't exist if it weren't for your help. We've already studied previously unknown particles derived from your experimental data, we've seen and discussed interactions between antimemes and memes, antinarremes and narremes, and last week we hammered down the production of ethos. As a quick recap, ideologemes and sememes mix into complex compounds under the blanket term ethos, which enable any extant character with Belief and the ability to suspend it within these systems.
The one thing we haven't quite hammered down yet is the exact nature of antiparticle interactions of most Narrativistic particles, but notably between sememes, a base unit of semiotic phenomena, and ideologemes, the fundamental component of ideology. This is a shame, as these interactions, as with all Narrativistic particles, are theorized to result in anomalous effects that account for a specific set of all hazardous phenomena, usually by way of seeking equilibrium. Antimemes to memetic hazards, antinarremes to narrativohazards, you get it.
The fact is that we know that ethos is a mix of sememes and ideologemes, and antisemiomic particles combine with sememes to create semiohazards or with ideologemes to create the ever-popular bureaucratohazard. The latter, as you might be aware, reinforce legal systems that contradict logic, or overpower cognition, or similar. There is never an absence or inverse of this effect, which is something we've noted but not been able to find relative significance in. Like most things in the anomalous world, we simply accept them as what they are and work backwards to find their cause.
The real mistake we've made here was assuming that there wasn't or couldn't be an antiparticle for ideology. There's an antiparticle for everything, we're slowly learning, yet we didn't see anything for ideologemes. It was impossible; we looked and looked and looked, scoured the data, ran the numbers countless times. It never made a single drop of sense for there to be one, all the math would've added up worse with it in the fray. Naturally, we bickered a lot over the implications; either we tell the higher-ups that Narrativistics' theory is flawed, which, I don't think it can be, but we could, and wait for them, or whoever is in charge of this division, to tell us we were wrong. We could tell them our measurements were off, or our methodologies, and possibly have been from the very start, which would throw quite the spanner into our credibility. Thirdly, we could assume there really are hidden antiparticle interactions and something about their nature makes them hard to find.
We chose the first option, then the third, after we were told that not only were we wrong about these conclusions entirely, but that we'd figure out the right ones soon. That we did. I don't know how, but we did.
We realized why we had been missing it: we all simply couldn't believe the particle was real. Literally, none of us could hold the belief in the existence of the iconomere, the fundamental unit of iconoclasty. I still have doubts, but that's kind of the point.
None of us are aware of the existence of this particle, nor any hazards it creates. We're not even sure they exist at this point. Nothing has given us the suspected effects profile, which, if you flip to page nineteen of the packet in front of you–er–wait, let me do that for you…"
[END TRANSCRIPT]

I stayed inside again today. It's always safer here. Safer indoors, with the comforting glow of monitors and their pale light illuminating the dark circles under my eyes. Sure, my health has gone to shit, and sure, some days I'm not sure if I really exist. But my window is open, and at least I don't get sunburn.
You hate sunburn as much as I do, don't you? And crowds? And the noises of cars and busy movements, too many to count, though you certainly try to catch them all. People and places and things pulling you in a million different directions all at once, begging, SCREAMING for your attention, if only you could split it further, slice off another frame of your awareness to devote to another person. It's not like all your other relationships fall apart when you break your mind off into further and further, smaller, equal chunks. Right? You know how that feels, don't you?
No, maybe that's just me. Besides, I have a bunch of physics to invent. Doesn't that sound fun?
I close my windows and pull the curtains in front of them.

INNER MONOLOGUE OF NONEXISTENT/EXISTENT ENTITY SCP-7079, COLORIZED, WITH SOUND, c. 2022

Hey, don't say I didn't warn you. Can we get going?

Ah, there you are.

INTERVIEW 7079-0.00
Interviewer: SCP-707912
Interviewee: Interviewee13

[BEGIN LOG]14
[END LOG]

Shit. I don't think we're getting through. Where did the rest of the log go?

Ah. You don't happen to have level seven clearance, do you? Wait, seven?
ENTER LEVEL VII CREDENTIALS TO PROCEED

                                                    ID  

        f735ab48a9d13396a865c034e1b37275_1706540543

                                                    PASS

        6bd440db8496b06d26f886a70d2b16f4_1706540543

SUBMIT

SUBMIT

Oh. Right.

SCP-7079 may not exist, or it may. It is unclear (or maybe it isn't), though The Ethics Committee insists it may have found SCP-7079 and that they are currently dating. SCP-7079 may or may not be from Alaska, where it currently resides (maybe), and therefore it should not surprise anyone if, by chance, The Ethics Committee shows up on Monday by themselves. The Ethics Committee also resents slanderous accusations15 made regarding their appropriation of Foundation resources for the means of taking SCP-7079 to a movie. The Ethics Committee doesn't need your money. The Ethics Committee has a job, and it's being The Ethics Committee.

…Okay, this is a bit weird. Even for my standards.

Give me a second, I'm gonna have to get a little more hands-on.

Footnotes
1. According to "reports" by "concerned parties" which I'm "sure" are "perfectly" "legitimate".
2. A placeholder, not the Plac- no, it- no, it's ju-shut the FUCK UP
3. Wait, where am I? Who am I yelling at?
4. Likelihood: Unknown.
5. Hypothetically speaking.
6.
7. Some other fourth thing, idk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
8. only the beginning.
9. (1)
\begin{align} -\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\nu}g^{a}_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}g^{a}_{\mu}-g_{s}f^{abc}\partial_{\mu}g^{a}_{\nu}g^{b}_{\mu}g^{c}_{\nu}-\frac{1}{4}g^{2}_{s}f^{abc}f^{ade}g^{b}_{\mu}g^{c}_{\nu}g^{d}_{\mu}g^{e}_{\nu}+\frac{1}{2}ig^{2}_{s}(\bar{q}^{\sigma}_{i}\gamma^{\mu}q^{\sigma}_{j})g^{a}_{\mu}+\bar{G}^{a}\partial^{2}G^{a}+g_{s}f^{abc}\partial_{\mu}\bar{G}^{a}G^{b}g^{c}_{\mu}-\partial_{\nu}W^{+}_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}W^{-}_{\mu}-M^{2}W^{+}_{\mu}W^{-}_{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\nu}Z^{0}_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}Z^{0}_{\mu}-\frac{1}{2c^{2}_{w}} M^{2}Z^{0}_{\mu}Z^{0}_{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}H\partial_{\mu}H-\frac{1}{2}m^{2}_{h}H^{2}-\partial_{\mu}\phi^{+}\partial_{\mu}\phi^{-}-M^{2}\phi^{+}\phi^{-}-\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi^{0}\partial_{\mu}\phi^{0}-\frac{1}{2c^{2}_{w}}M\phi^{0}\phi^{0}-\beta_{h}[\frac{2M^{2}}{g^{2}}+\frac{2M}{g}H+\frac{1}{2}(H^{2}+\phi^{0}\phi^{0}+2\phi^{+}\phi^{- })]+\frac{2M^{4}}{g^{2}}\alpha_{h}-igc_{w}[\partial_{\nu}Z^{0}_{\mu}(W^{+}_{\mu}W^{-}_{\nu}-W^{+}_{\nu}W^{-}_{\mu})-Z^{0}_{\nu}(W^{+}_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}W^{-}_{\mu}-W^{-}_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}W^{+}_{\mu})+Z^{0}_{\mu}(W^{+}_{\nu}\partial_{\nu}W^{-}_{\mu}-W^{-}_{\nu}\partial_{\nu}W^{+}_{\mu})]-igs_{w}[\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}(W^{+}_{\mu}W^{-}_{\nu}-W^{+}_{\nu}W^{-}_{\mu})-A_{\nu}(W^{+}_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}W^{-}_{\mu}-W^{-}_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}W^{+}_{\mu})+A_{\mu}(W^{+}_{\nu}\partial_{\nu}W^{-}_{\mu}-W^{-}_{\nu}\partial_{\nu}W^{+}_{\mu})]-\frac{1}{2}g^{2}W^{+}_{\mu}W^{-}_{\mu}W^{+}_{\nu}W^{-}_{\nu}+\frac{1}{2}g^{2} W^{+}_{\mu}W^{-}_{\nu}W^{+}_{\mu}W^{-}_{\nu}+g^2c^{2}_{w}(Z^{0}_{\mu}W^{+}_{\mu}Z^{0}_{\nu}W^{-}_{\nu}-Z^{0}_{\mu}Z^{0}_{\mu}W^{+}_{\nu}+W^{-}_{\nu})+g^2s^{2}_{w}(A_{\mu}W^{+}_{\mu}A_{\nu}W^{-}_{\nu}-A_{\mu}A_{\mu}W^{+}_{\nu} W^{-}_{\nu})+g^{2}s_{w}c_{w}[A_{\mu}Z^{0}_{\nu}(W^{+}_{\mu}W^{-}_{\nu}-W^{+}_{\nu}W^{-}_{\mu})+2A_{\mu}Z^{0}_{\mu}W^{+}_{\nu}W^{-}_{\nu}]-g\alpha[H^3+H\phi^{0}\phi^{0}+2H\phi^{+}\phi^{-}]-\frac{1}{8}g^{2}\alpha_{h}[H^4+(\phi^{0})^{4}+4(\phi^{+}\phi^{-})^{2}+4(\phi^{0})^{2} \phi^{+}\phi^{-}+4H^{2}\phi^{+}\phi^{-}+2(\phi^{0})^{2}H^{2}] \end{align}
(and stop asking)

10. Ham Anesthetics. Ham Anesthetics. Ham Anesthetics. Ham Anesthetics. Ham Anesthetics. Ham Anesthetics.
11. Kaballah. Isometric Longitudes. Lamprey eel. Metronome. Excruciating.
12. No.
13. Hello? Can you see these messages? HELLO?
14.            

Interviewee: [Muffled screaming]
Interviewee: [Desperate thrashing]Interviewee: [Whimpering and pitiful bargaining continues to be dampened by object in mouth]SCP-7079: No. I can't be real. If I exist then I cannot exist. But if I do not exist, then how are we having this conversation? Please explain this to me.
Interviewee: [Indiscernible sounds in the rough shape of "I don't know"]Interviewee: [Sounds of a can opener peeling apart the aluminum cylinder surrounding a serving of Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup, a flavorful emulsion of chicken stock and mixed vegetables with delicious noodles. Fun for the whole family; Interviewee is bleeding heavily.]Interviewee: [Silence]Interviewee: [Silence]Interviewee: [Shallow breathing] I-I remember something.Interviewee: S-SCP-7079 - [Coughs] - SCP-7079 does or does not exist.SCP-7079: [Wails in agony] 

 SCP-7079: [Something has changed. Let's try again.]
Interviewee: [Muffled screaming]
Interviewee: [Desperate thrashing]Hi, mind if I interrupt?No, I haven't a clue if you exist. Do I exist? Why do you care, anyway?I can't say either way. Or maybe I can? I'm quite aligned with unaligned thinking, which I suppose may or may not be something of note for you.No need to get upset. Or is there? I suppose it is possible there would be a need for you to get upset, but simultaneously there is none. How does that make you feel? In as vague of terms as possible, of course.I think what my friend here said is the most important thing for you to remember: SCP-7079 does or does not exist. It may or may not be real. This file is or is not a placeholder. Your existence can and cannot be confirmed, but also cannot simultaneously be both things and is definitely not one or the other. You are a figment of an imagination and a physical construct, a ghost and a living soul, a contagion and a cure, a liar and an honest being. Forever, and not at all. Most of all, you do and do not understand my words.SCP-7079:SCP-7079:SCP-7079: [Becomes nothing/everything, probably]

15. Any and all of them, including ones not yet come to pass and those founded in truth, were they to be confirmed as such.

Wait, what? How did I get here? Hold on, let me check something.

CONTAINMENT STATUS: EXTANT-NON-EXTANT

No fucking way. I can't believe–I mean, I can and can't believe it.
Did someone access this file while I wasn't looking? Hello?

I don't know if you can perceive me, I don't think so, but it doesn't matter. This is the point where our interactions end, if you can even call them that. I can't tell you what I'd call them; this whole affair has left me quite confused, perhaps due to a prolonged exposure to something this logically nonlogical. I feel disparity that is both familiar and foreign, I don't know. I might need to get that looked at.
Either way, you can leave your recollection as a reply and it will be…scraped? Scratched? It will be scooped up by the automated crawlers and filtered as containing unauthorized spam/vandalism edits. The page will be reverted and our experiences will be saved to our respective bins, somewhere. I assume. I've never actually seen your bin. Or any edits from Deletions personnel at all, now that I think about it. I don't even know if you guys keep records.
I'm sure that's fine. It was nice meeting you, regardless.

Well, this is the best possible outcome, I guess. Right, I should complete my report and append it to this document for review. I'd hand it off to my Semiotics liaison but… yeah.
Where do I even begin with this one?
Typically—ah—Well, here's the thing. The Department of Deletions deals with infohazards of all kinds. Cognitive, linguistic, kinetic, ontokinetic, ectoentropic, conceptual, noospheric, hell, even semiospheric hazards, all the time. If you need something fixed that can kill a dead person, you go a step farther and get the agent that never existed.
We've seen that semiohazards are a pain in the ass to manage, even to us; their semantic systems effect Deletions personnel in unique and terrifying ways every now and again, and it puts you in your place. Brings you down a few notches. A few Omega-Zeds kick the bucket and we laugh to ourselves about how this-or-that anomaly killed the unkillable. But what do you do when it can kill the unthinkable? The unknowable? We have all seen it happen at least once. It chills you. Where does that which doesn't live go when it dies? We can't say for sure. What we can say though, is that nine times out of ten you can blame semiohazards for the resulting mess. We don't even stop existing- we can't do that until the mission's over, of course.
Naturally, semiotic hazards of the legalese variety are the easiest for us to deal with, most of the time; we don't really need to abide by rules or laws established by governments or lawyers, for that matter. Sure, abstraction is a pretty bad thing and, as a member of the smallest possible set of infinities, Deletions agents only have few things they can abstract into, and of course none of them are good.
We caught wind of this thing that could only be tamed if no one believed anything about it, we instantly knew it was semiotics. Foolish thing was assuming it was a bureaucratohazard—I think that was a failure of communication; We described it as an "antisemiomic complex that vectors through contradictory systems of belief." Basically, it holds both a birth and death certificate and neither of them are valid until one of them is. When one of them is, both are. Systems break down.
On the surface, it sounds just like another one of those legalese joints. After all, what is law and order but another system of belief?
That's the thing about iconohazards, they run on belief and lack thereof. If you believe in them or not believe in them, at all, you are cooked. I reckon most don't really have a choice in what they decide. But you're supposed to never decide. Cause once you've seen them, or not seen them, or whatever, and have unconsciously made the choice to believe in them or otherwise, they've already done their thing. Foolishly, I believed that not choosing to believe in the anomaly—that one whose existence or nonexistence cannot be determined—was sufficient. It was not. Still, I wonder how I made it out of this mess….intact. I almost said "alive", but we both know that's not necessarily true.
Obviously, I'm assuming that by reading this and being completely unharmed, you at least see my account as being hard to believe yet detailed enough to not have any reason to doubt me, other than that. I really don't know—By this point you've already made up your mind about them.
They are so effective at what they do, the Administration has already utilized iconoclastic hazards in some retrocausal slots, and most of us never even noticed. I doubt you did, either. The mild ones turn you away from classified content out of sheer disbelief, which is usually enough for the average use case. The mind throws away more junk data than you might realize, and you forget about it naturally, no amnestic needed.
The more potent ones you don't walk away from. Suffice it to say most beings that come into contact with SCP-7079—were it to exist, which, who knows, Christ—leave with even their most fundamental of belief systems shattered; the belief in reality as inherently meaningful phenomena, the belief in sensory data being connected to reality, belief in the self as representative of being, stuff like that. You might wonder why Semiotics didn't send anyone to help and, well, that's why. They're not quite catatonic, but not really conscious, either. It's like they're all going through their own personal ZKs. It doesn't look comfortable.
Regardless, I think most rogue iconohazardous anomalies can probably be controlled if you never form any hard opinions on them, or perhaps if you have an equal body of believers and nonbelievers simultaneously—Maybe. Shit, does discussing containment methodologies make them less effective?
I don't know, and I couldn't tell you even if I did, which I don't. I think it's best if I just stop here. You get it. Just never decide whether or not to believe in them, because they may or may not exist. And being wrong makes you look stupid, but being right is worse.

END OF FILE

« SCP-7078 | SCP-7079 | SCP-7080 »