I know you're making a joke, so I'm not writing this to correct you, but I'd like to point out that Haskell/pure FP is different not because it denies affecting reality, but because it only offers a one-way interface to affecting reality: it allows you to alter values in reality using pure functions, but it denies you the ability to "pull in" values from reality, into your pure functions.
This paradigm is powerful because it accurately reflects how our universe works: it is possible for a thought to affect reality (through a human being acting on it), but it is not possible to "pull in" an object from reality, into your mind. The only way to form a thought about something is to look at that thing, and try to construct - in your mind - a thought that reflects certain properties of the thing you're looking at. You can't "pull" that thing from reality into your mind, thus creating a thought. No such interface exists in this universe, as far as I'm aware.
It is, however, very possible for a human being to choose to act on a thought, thereby causing the thought to have a side effect. The analog to this in Haskell is applying a pure function to a value in IO. The function is pure, but we can use it to alter a value that resides in IO (reality). Similarly, a thought, in and of itself, does not affect reality (it is pure); it requires a human being to act on it - "apply it to reality" - in order for it to have an effect.
In short: Haskell allows your program to alter reality, but it does not allow reality to alter your program.
