No, it’s simple logic.
Let’s state it another way, since you are a bit slow on the uptake:
There exists a horse. The horse is an absolute. I try to paint a picture of a horse. This is an approximation of a horse, but no matter how realistic my depiction of that horse is, it can never be a horse, only an approximation of a horse.
Even if I were to refine my methodology, and make a three dimensional sculpture of a horse, the same principle holds true. The end result is still an approximation, not a horse. In order to make a horse, I would have to resort to an entirely different methodology than approximation, as the nature of approximation precludes the possibility of me ever achieving my goal.
>>There exists a horse. The horse is an absolute. I try to paint a picture of a horse. This is an approximation of a horse, but no matter how realistic my depiction of that horse is, it can never be a horse, only an approximation of a horse.
Even if I were to refine my methodology, and make a three dimensional sculpture of a horse, the same principle holds true. The end result is still an approximation, not a horse. In order to make a horse, I would have to resort to an entirely different methodology than approximation, as the nature of approximation precludes the possibility of me ever achieving my goal.<<
So, your definition of an approximation is an approximation. Sounds like a tautology to me...
But I am done arguing and in the “drinks on me” mode. Too darn bad you aren’t here so I could pay with an analogy of money... :) ;)