[MD] Porkchops and Applesauce

[Case]

Ron,

I suspect we are pushing the math metaphor a little hard but yeah sort of.
Much is made about "defining" DQ. Often we like to think we know damn well
what it is not. So if you subtract what it is not from everything you get DQ
left over. Or you could treat it in the same way calculus was ultimately
rendered and sensible and Zeno's Paradox was solved, that is through the
concept of the limit. Where DQ is never exactly specified but you know where
it is going or what it is approaching.

I have always thought that the reason that the Tao can not be defined is not
so much that we don't know exactly what it is right now but it probably
won't be "that" in a few minutes and certainly it won't be "that" by
tomorrow. So by naming it all we do is create the illusion of recognition.

Case




Case,
The rounding error is the action of dynamic quality.
Dynamic quality can not be defined
It is infinate possiblity.
To name it is to give it an assumed absolute value.
Which does not exist.
To give it an assumed absolute value decreases the
Accuracy but allows it to be percieved.

Only when we make 1 static can 1 be useful- ie. assuming an absolute
value of 1.
When 1 is dynamic it can not be touched,ie. "looked for, it can not be
found"