>>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... :) ;)
“So, your definition of an approximation is an approximation. Sounds like a tautology to me...”
I’m not defining approximation, I’m trying to explain why approximation, by its nature, is incapable of achieving what the author of the article claims that it can.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with Plato.