because we know when we dream at night for the most part, this idea of a dream that we are constantly inside of seems flawed to me. I say this because I lucid dream a lot, (I actually only recall ever dreaming when it was a lucid dream where I had full control over my actions), and when I remember attempting to sleep in a lucid dream, I either wasn't able to, woke up in reality, or my memory of that dream ended at that point- so what I'm saying is I've never been able to experience dreaming while already dreaming, which is what makes me think that although this reality could possibly be some crazy illusion or simulation, but just pulling from that experience it makes me think that what the author is pointing at is likely impossible

what if you believe you are justified in believing in or knowing something, but the person you communicate that knowledge to disagrees in its justification? How do we justify or justifications? Splitting hairs here, but to me it seems Socrates and Theaetetus need a "d)" to explain their definition of justification and the parameters for what is and isn't justifiable using only our knowledge as evidence.

Not gonna lie, this question was extremely scary to ponder in my head. If that's the case, then, well I don't know. I am not sure how to even wrap my head around this because if it were somehow true, it woulda kinda make everything in life as we know it just an illusion. Spooky. Definitely gotta watch The Matrix again with this in mind