andrewducker | Categorisation - 1500 words of theory

Categorisation - 1500 words of theory

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'"

Over here Blackmanxy asks whether there's a purpose to this categorisation of RPGs.

I've run into this question on numerous occasions before (not about this list, per se, but the question of categorisation in general) and it's a fairly frequent occurence that people don't understand the urge that leads people to break things down into categories and try to pigeon-hole various instances into them.

Blackmanxy's a fairly smart chap and it's obvious from his comments that he knows that all such categories are inherently arbitrary. They are based around what one (or more) people see as the defining characteristics of the genre (or medium or species or whatever) and as such are always going to be very biased in favour of whatever it is people want to show. The way a zoologist categorises animals is not going to be the same as the way a farrier does, for instance, because one cares about the ancestry of the animal while the other cares about the type of fur they produce. Neither is a more accurate way of categorising the animals, neither is The Truth about the animal, they are both useful in different situations, depending on what you are interested in.

Another problem with these lists is that there are always things that fall through the cracks. Any categorisation of genre, for instance, falls down in about 5% of all cases where film either cross genre or ignore them entirely (Is "Alien" Science Fiction or Horror? What genre does "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" fall into?). Genre is a particularly vague categorisation method, so it's not surprising that there are such large problems with it, but nearly all category sets have similar problems (genetic categorisation is a possible exception, as I believe it's impossible for a species to descend from two separate branches of the evolutionary tree, but every so often evolution throws in a wild card such as the duck-billed platypus, which lays eggs, has a stinger and is still a mammal).

So, having decided that Blackmanxy is right and that not only is there no one true categorisation but that any categorisation we do make is going to have holes where it doesn't map onto reality, what is the point of categorisation at all?

The answer? Because it's impossible to talk about things without categorising them. Now, in the traditions of philosophers everywhere I'm going to push this as far as possible and say that every time you use a verb or a noun, you're engaging in categorisation. If I say "Grab a chair" I'm actually taking a whole group of different motions and possible effects and grouping them together as "grab" and doing the same with "chair" which could cover a wide range of different types of object that can be sat on, ranging from a normal straight backed chair to stools, swivel chairs, settee chairs and possibly as far as cushions and particularly comfortable rocks depending on the definitions of the participants in the conversation.

And it’s here that the problem lies, "The definitions of the participants in the conversation." Any definition is a statement of category. It says "When I talk about X, I am referring to this particular way of looking at something, in this particular circumstance." If find that the majority of arguments of intelligent people stem from one of two sources, either different experiences or different definitions. I’ve both been in and seen many arguments where two people were arguing the same side, but unable to see it because they both thought the other person meant something different because they hadn’t agreed their terms beforehand.

Of course, most conversations don’t start with an explanation of definitions. You assume that, as you have similar backgrounds and experiences, that the other person means the same thing as you when they use the same words. The problem being that you learn words inductively - you just pick them up as you go along based on how other people use them. On one level, this is a really useful thing to happen as words change their usage over time and the language mutates into the forms that people use it in, making it a remarkably flexible tool. On the other hand this makes exact communication very hard.

Many's the time that myself and Erin have had arguments during which she's said "Well, everyone on the planet except you would have understood what I meant." Leaving aside the discussion of my possible alien origins, this is a fairly obvious misconception - that the way that you use language is the way that everyone uses language. Not only that, but I've had numerous discussions where referring to the dictionary to show that the way that you were using the word under discussion was the correct way was met by howls of "That may be the way the word used to be used, but everyone knows that's now what it means now!"

There's obviously both a tendency towards believing both that the meaning of words is obvious (and your definition is correct) and that any discussion of them is irrelevant. However, this means that any meaningful discussion is absolutely impossible. If you don't have terms and definitions organised in advance, you can have semi-meangingful chatter about a subject, but you can't actually analyse it, form theories about it or hammer out exact problems and solutions. The reason why theorists and scientists use complicated language is that each word has a precise definition. They avoid using ordinary english precisely because of the preconceptions attached to it. If fact, if someone tries to explain very complex things using plain english, chances are that they are going to tie you up in linguistic knots (for a great example of this, see Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which gets you to agree that you can use the word "Quality" in one context and then uses at least 3 different meanings of the word elsewhere to fool you into thinking it has a coherent argument).

However, coherent definitions most definitely aren't enough. People interpret. It's pretty much what the brain does - take various rules, definitions, ideas an inputs and tries to make sense of them given it's own experience. This means that either a definition has to have multiple exact examples to tie down exactly what it means (and few people are good enough writers to do this perfectly) or there has to be massed discussion to hammer out a general concensus. Failing to do this leads you back to the interminable arguments, only this time it's worse, because everyone has the definitions and examples to prove they are right.

A couple of years ago a friend of mine, depressed about the way that our gaming sessions went, tried to introduce us all to a theory of gaming. He'd read the theory, seen that it pointed out very clearly his problems with what we did and wanted us to understand as well. At the very least the theory gave some useful terms for discussion so that we could talk about his perceived problems, codify what it was each of us wanted out of the games and see where we all stood.

The main reaction was one of confusion. None of us could (a) understand why he had a problem or (b) understand why anyone would want to take gaming (a fun, simple thing) and talk about it in complicated terms as if it was a degree course. Eventually we were all cajoled into reading it (some of us more easily than others), discussion happened, we tried to get things sorted out and it all fell apart in as messy a way as things have ever fallen apart in my experience. Leaving aside the personal fallout, following the messy ending, I had the two people who had fallen out both pointing out to me that their interpretations were completely valid interpretations of what had been discussed.

From what I saw and understood (and I didn't write the theory, so my interpretation is as fallible as the next man) they both had very good points. And those points could almost certainly been cleared up if they had been discussed at length. But, sadly, it all fell apart over the arguments based on the conclusions people had come to, because the discussions never took place over the actual theory, but only over the game people wanted to play.

To sum up, yes, making the definitions and producing the slices into different categories is a vital part of any kind of serious discussion, but it's important to remember that your definitions are arbitrary and only to be considered useful in the context that you made them. It's also vital that proper discussion of those categories takes place, to find the flaws and the areas of disagreement before you then go on to the next stage of discussing what to do with those definitions.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I like listening to industrial.

I like listening to EBM.

I like listening to rhythmic noise.

I like listening to electro.

I like listening to music that sounds like Front 242.

All of these statements can mean the same thing, all of these statements can mean different things. You have no idea what I mean by these statements. You can make assumptions, but you don't know.

I could define what I mean by each "genre" in terms of artists that I mean, but that would be meaningless. If I say that "band X sounds like band Y", how do you know that I don't mean their production values are similar? Or that their singers both have similar accents, or that they both use similar levels of distortion on the drums?

When I talk about industrial, am I using it as an exclusive term or an inclusive term?

When I talk about role-playing, I mean something different to you. I exclude things that I don't think of as role-playing. I can use it to exclude trading card games, wargames, lots of online gaming, quite a lot of larping, certain kinds of "RPG", bad "role-playing" and most computer games. But in advance, you don't know what I mean.

You can talk for hours and hours about definitions, but unless you define every single word used, then your discussion is -entirely- meaningless.

Example.

saint: I enjoy listening to psychobilly and I dislike playing shadowrun.
Nick: I dislike listening to rockabilly but I like playing shadowrun.

We are, in fact, not disagreeing with each other. We're not even talking about the same things.

saint is saying that he likes listening to a musical genre, and he dislikes the specific shadowrun campaign he played in once.
Nick is saying that he didn't like the one song that he's heard by The Cramps, and he thought they looked silly; and I'm also saying that I like the two shadowrun games I've played in recently.

And any theory, whether of gaming, musical genre, philosophy or anything else, is only useful if you are willing to accept its definitions. If the theory says "games are like -this-, what can we do with that?" but you don't believe that games -are- like that, the theory is of no use to you. That doesn't invalidate the theory, because all the theory is doing is saying "We believe games are like this". There is no reason all players of role-playing games -should- believe this theory or indeed be covered by it.

-IF- a group of players come up with THEIR OWN theory of the way -they- see gaming as a group, that would be something to discuss. But why pick someone else's? It's like being in a philosophy class I was in where the tutor said "So can plants think?" and one student said "Of course not, God didn't create them to think." They had utterly different views which they both believed in. Neither was -necessarily- right or wrong straight off, but the point is there was no reason for one of them to assume that the other would even be able to -understand- his argument on a basic level. The religious student could happily discuss plants, thoughts, form and function with people, but not in the way the class did, because the class (all of it except him) was starting from the idea that "anything might be able to think" while he was starting out from "The Bible is true."

saint: I enjoy listening to psychobilly and I dislike playing shadowrun.
Nick: I dislike listening to rockabilly but I like playing shadowrun.

I meant to write

Nick: I dislike listening to psychobilly... etc

-IF- a group of players come up with THEIR OWN theory of the way -they- see gaming as a group, that would be something to discuss. But why pick someone else's?

Because one or more of them saw some value in it? Because it accurately (to them) summed up the way they felt?

Why invent your own theory when someone else has already created one that works for you?

If a group create a theory of gaming, for example, or a theory of genre then the group -as a whole- has come up with it so it covers the points which they all view as important.

If one person picks a theory because he feels a certain way (and he already knows other people don't feel that way) then he's already excluding people.

It's like me coming up with ideal ways to subdivide EBM and asking Shaun for his opinions.

A group can't create anything - one person creates bits of it, other people create other bits. They then compromise over the details.

That's no different to one person arriving with a whole theory and others then giving their input into it.

Also, lets say that one group works out a theory, and then a member goes to talk to other people about gaming - suddenly he has no method of doing so. If there's a general theory, then anyone can talk about it with anyone else (up to a point, obviously).

Firstly, you only have to compromise if you disagree. If you all agree and work together in the right way, there's no need for compromise. A lot is said by the fact that you said a group doing something has to involve compromise. But of course, from your point a view, a group doesn't do anything.

And secondly:
There is a -world- of difference between these two scenarios.

1] A group of people sit down and slowly work out together a theory of the way that they see something as working, creating terms, relabelling things.

2] A group of people sit down. One of them says "Here is a theory some other people came up with, for the way that they saw the world as working. I believe it. This is the way things work, now we will discuss things using the terms from this theory, and basing things on the way the world works, according to this theory."

For example: you refuse to accept certain kinds of proofs in argument because for you, logical argument can't involve certain kinds of things. If someone's theory completely doesn't accept something that you believe utterly and find important, then if you are -already- using that theory as the frame of discussion and are just hammering out the way you will work -within- the theory, then things have gone wrong already.

If rec.music.industrial defines generic terms for industrial, then ALL they have created is generic terms used by rec.music.industrial

net.goth terms and idioms don't necessarily equate to terms used by all goths in rl. Nor should they.

I'm stopping right here, right now, because after this, I can't continue without being specific and I'm not going to do that.

End of spidermonster portion of argument. Please reboot from start.

If rec.music.industrial defines generic terms for industrial, then ALL they have created is generic terms used by rec.music.industrial

Weren't you arguing that industrial was an "absolute definition" just now?

I'll start by using part of spidermonster's answer to this post There is a -world- of difference between these two scenarios.

1] A group of people sit down and slowly work out together a theory of the way that they see something as working, creating terms, relabelling things.

2] A group of people sit down. One of them says "Here is a theory some other people came up with, for the way that they saw the world as working. I believe it. This is the way things work, now we will discuss things using the terms from this theory, and basing things on the way the world works, according to this theory."

I see the key difference is that in (1) the definition is a created effort that is a result of everyone in the group's efforts and that fits their understanding of the situation. External definitions are neither flexible nor based on the same understanding of the situation (& possibly not even the on same basic situation). As a result, (1) can be made to fit the group's needs and (2) won't. In the absence of any re-existing categories (see my response to your initial post for my view on this) creating a definition for a specific purpose is going to almost always be superior to using a pre-existing definition.

I see the key difference is that in (1) the definition is a created effort that is a result of everyone in the group's efforts and that fits their understanding of the situation.

This presumes that (a) there are definitions that fit everyone's efforts, everyone contributes as well as each other, etc. and (b) that people are as capable of coming up with theories as each other. There are people out there who have come up with theories that I might never come up with, that still fit my ideas near perfectly. I see no reason not to build on their ideas rather than confine myself to what I might come up with locked in a room on my own without access to anyone elses thoughts.

nICk is right, a group can create a consensus, and there's probably no other way to do so. One of the problems I had at the time was that alot was imposed by fiat, you know (since you're the one I discussed it with) that I left the game because there was no way it would have ever been *my* game. If I disagreed I was shouted down, while everyone else sat in silence willing a game to happen with their minds.

So definitions...

they are a good thing but need some agreement,
you surely remember how we used to argue for *ages* and then suddenly realise "oh you meant X by that, I'd never have thought of it that way" and discover we were largely on the same side of the issue.

I'm only even -mentioning- roleplaying here as an example and because you do. You could easily subsitute pretty much anything for the role-playing mentions in the original post.

The point of categorisation is to show certain things, to demonstrate acceptance or rejection, and to break things down in a way that you feel makes sense.

If I categorise bands by the accent of the singer, that's fine. It's showing how it is that I listen to music, the kind of divisions that my brain makes, and the things that I think are important. It also shows that I'm probably not the kind of person who listens to music without a singer, and that it's fairly likely I have a good selection of music, and don't just listen to music from one place.

And categories are only arbitrary for other people. For me, certain kinds of categorisation are absolutely essential, plainly obvious, and practically inherent. Certain genres of music, as an example, can quite obviously be subdivided in certain ways to me. It doesn't make sense to me NOT to have those divisions. But to Joe Q Public, the division between country music, western music, bluegrass, New Country, Country rock and alt.country is absolutely meaningless.

Some things I -do- categorise abitrarily.. but not everything.

To me, some divisions are essential, just the same as they are to anyone. We all have things that HAVE to be divided and categorised certain ways.

It doesn't make sense to -expect- other people to follow this. It doesn't matter if you're the best explainer in the world... if the other person doesn't have your mind, they do not, and dependent on what it -is- that you're dividing, may never see those divisions. Sometimes they can be explained and the person can get a glimpse, but it's a fallacy to assume that just because you can explain it, everyone else will be able to grasp it.

You've already said people are different. By -definition- someone won't be able to see your point.

I'm just going to say that I agree with pretty much everything here.

This confused me slightly:

And categories are only arbitrary for other people.

I meant arbitrary in a general sense. Because categorisation is based on meaning and meaning is entirely subjective. Obviously they seem less arbitrary to the person who came up with them.

"based on chance rather than being planned or based on reason" is a definition of arbitrary. My decisions about industrial sub-genres are -not- arbitrary for me, they are arbitrary from your point of view. Objectively they're still not arbitrary entirely, because I -did- plan them, I didn't just line up my CDs and pick places to create a sub-genre and then randomly choose a word from the dictionary to describe it.

And just as a technical point, you can have categories/sub-genres that aren't arbitrary and are entirely objective. They tend to be ignored though, because people misuse labels so much and don't know the meanings behind what they are saying. Myself included.

Industrial music, properly, is music that was released on the label Industrial Records.

There's a generic term for the 60s girl groups that were produced by Phil Spector. I can't remember what it is, though.

And gabba is an objective term as well. It's music that's over a certain BPM. It's not subjective, either it -is- gabba or it isn't. That's the definition of the genre.

The artists who worked from Warhol's factory get lumped together as Factory artists. There isn't a grey area there. Either they did produce art at the Factory, or they didn't.

As far as I know from what people have said, d20 system games are fairly objective. They are games released using a certain system with a certain aim in mind.

None of these are subjective. Industrial -is- that. It's what the genre was defined as. Other people may misuse the terms, people who pay attention use different terms. And before you say that this changes the meaning of the term, if you and me refer to Denver as being a dog, that doesn't make her a dog. It just means we're wrong.

Yes, there are many, many, many categories which are abitrary, meaningless, or have changeable meanings or are subjective. But there -are- some that aren't. It's not a point that's very relevant to the article though.

Aah, definitions that are easily testable.

Most people using the words "industrial" probably aren't working to the same definition as you. It's certainly a perfectly reasonable definition, as long as you get everyone to agree on it. I'm not sure that I'd be willing to base a definition of a kind of music on the people that paid for it to be produced, rather than something intrinsic to the music itself. If you can't tell the genre from the music itself, how does it apply?

I'm willing to bet that some stuff was produced "kinda at the Factory", or produced "with input from the Factory" or "version one produced at home, version 2 at the Factory, version 3 from my home in Miami"

And before you say that this changes the meaning of the term, if you and me refer to Denver as being a dog, that doesn't make her a dog. It just means we're wrong.

Hmm, "dog" has a different commonly accepted definition. If we were to start over with a different language, the character combination D O G could possibly be the signifier for what she was. Unlikely, but there ya go. Words mean whatever people want them to mean, there's nothing intrinsic about a collection of syllables, sounds, letters, etc.

If I said you were "bad" in the 50s, 80s and today, would I mean the same thing?

If there aren't definitions that -are- right then you can't have your precious logical arguments or reliance on "you can measure it"

An inch isn't a mystical thing that determines the very fabric of the universe. It's someone saying "hey, if I put my fingers -this- far apart, what shall we call it?"

You can say "but it's practically objective that light travels this fast" and cite a measurement, that's "proved" by more measurements. And if the words of those measurement meant different things in the past, I guess that'd invalidate your results, by your own argument.

"If you can't tell the genre from the music itself, how does it apply?"

But you can tell. Industrial Records released music that sounded certain ways, made by people with certain intentions, in a certain time and place. The genre is very obvious to those people who know what the listen for. I couldn't tell the difference between happy house and handbag music. It doesn't mean someone else couldn't. The music is called industrial because it was released on Industrial Records. But Industrial Records released a certain kind of music -due- to something intrinsic to the music and the bands themselves. (musical genres aren't just based on the music itself btw)

The fact that they stopped releasing stuff was for a variety of reasons, not least of which was that industrial, as far as I know, was not meant to be a genre to last.

" It's certainly a perfectly reasonable definition, as long as you get everyone to agree on it"

If the majority of people were illiterate, you would then be wrong to assign meanings to those scrawls you can make when given a pen and paper.

But many of the people who use the word "industrial" aren't in possession of the full facts of the matter, so logically (well, presumably by your standards), they cannot possibly count for being part of "everyone".

A genre that's entirely objective? How you gonna do that one? Base it on the number of BPM? Or the ratio of high to low frequency of sound? And if so, how to decide the amounts that define the boundaries of the borders

Take a big group of samples of music.

Count the bpm.

You notice that bpm's range from about 80 to about 170 with a fairly nice spread and variance. Then you notice that there's a separate band that range from 200-240 that doesn't go outside it much. Then you notice that there is another band from 300-400 that doesn't venture outside it.

Surely by some kind of logical scientific processes which over the years of your livejournal and the redlounge list, you have professed your belief in as a valid tool in arguments, this would seem to indicate that you could definitely take the 300-400 bpm music as being in a separate category, and quite possibly the 200 to 240 bpm music.

If you don't think you can define a genre like this, how can you determine things scientifically, or measure things, or see any two separate things as being different?

Well, you _could_ break them up like that, if you felt those breakdowns were useful, interesting or liable to prove some point you wanted to.

Or you might decide that "guitars/not guitars" was a better breakdown or "country/weatern/other" was the only breakdown that mattered to you.

It's whatever matters to you. And if you come up with that breakdown yourself, or use someone elses breakdown because it makes sense to you, it's still equally valid.

I'm not going to offer much, because I don't want to incite to riot, but I think I might be picking up on two nonexplicit points of contention:
1) The nature of 'arbitrary'. Arbitrary doesn't have to mean 'doesn't make sense' or even 'doesn't make sense from anyone's perspective apart from my own', though colloquial usage does tend to have that connotation. At its heart, 'arbitrary' just means a dicision or categorisation not based on predefined rules (which, it must be said, may be arbitrary).
2) the self-reflexivity of certain kinds of categorisations. I shall take 'industrial music' as an example, though I do not know to what sort of music the term refers. I do this hilst recognising that it may be a poor example, in that the way it generalises over other cases may not be clear, but I hope you'll bear with me through that caveat. If not, just tell me to go away. ;) If 'Industrial music' is defined as being like the kind of music that Industrial Records produced, which music may indeed have a certain essential je ne sais quoi, still there is the conundrum that then 'industrial music' is industrial music only insofar as it is like industrial music. This makes it a good working definition, but what do we do with borderline cases? In order to have nonarbitrary categorisation rules must be established that do not make essential reference to the things the rules are meant to constrain.
Now, how we establish the rules appears to be the problem: are there or aren't there forces governing how we categorise?

"this is a fairly obvious misconception - that the way that you use language is the way that everyone uses language."

The arguements we have had where I have exploded, are instances where you have sidetracked from the larger issue (whether on purpose or not, I'm never sure) into saying "but you said x. That means [insert Andrew's defintion of word]" And I have said "No, hon, everyone knows that x means [insert Erin's definition of word]"

Now, I would be a very stupid human being if I assumed that the way I use language is the way that everyone uses language. But when I say that the majority of the people on the planet use the same definition as me, I think I'm right. Because, my friend, the words that we quibble about? They are usually things like 'and' or 'or' or 'friend' or 'cheese'. Ones where you say, for example "well 'friend' to me has always meant someone who teaches me something, but that I don't necessarily hang around with' and I look at you, speechless with anger, because it feels like I have to re-educate you in Earth Speak 101 to even hold a conversation with you, let alone think about actually clearing up the arguement. (And, yes, I know you've never said that, but I don't go around writing our arguements down, and the above sentence makes about as much sense as you normally do to me when you start nit picking over words).

So dont you go giving the impression that I just use that cry as a means to get out of the arguement. It is the cry of frustration from someone that has just been told "I don't believe in good or bad as concepts, so I can't tell you whether I thought that film was any good" To which I normally reply "oh, go fuck yourself". You always seem to understand that one, funnily enough.

You would have a similar problem with me. Sean often does (in fact many people often do). I won't sidetrack (now) into how everybody else int the whole world can agree but still be wrong (another related point, at least in my head).

"But, sadly, it all fell apart over the arguments based on the conclusions people had come to, because the discussions never took place over the actual theory, but only over the game people wanted to play."

Please, please keep mentioning this on your journal. I simply can't be reminded enough and I love being used as an example. ;)

I haven't read this all yet, but I think you mean "furrier" (does stuff with fur) rather than "farrier" (shoes horses).

That's actually probably as intelligent a comment as you will get from me.....

I'm with Sam Delany on this one. Categorization is always both useful and necessary. When talking about physics, chemistry, or zoology or any other hard or natural science, precise definitions of the various categories (genus canis, leptons, metals...) are reasonably possible. However, I see the case as very different wrt any sort of cultural or artistic endeavors. Fields like literary criticism are not sciences, and the process of classifying a work of literature or a game into a specific genre or other category is in no way scientific.

All such divisions are purely arbitrary in a way in a way that renders all attempts to make precise definitions of these categories useless. Delany in The Politics of Paraliterary Criticism does an excellent job of showing why attempting to define (for example) the genre of science fiction as anything other than are very loose and operational definition (what he calls a functional description instead of a formal definition) is doomed to failure. Essentially, any exact and formal definitions of such endeavors are either meaningless "SF is the literature of ideas" or clumsy, artificial, and pointless. The problem with the RPG classification system mentioned above is that it seemed narrow and specific enough that it could only be used as a formal definition.

Boundaries are never sharp and exact, no matter what sort of categorization system on is using. However, if there are not obvious clusterings (which happens far more in zoology and chemistry than in literature or art) thee is no point in having any but the loosest type of categorization. Attempting to come up with any sort of precise definitions for categories of human art and literature (or of any other aspect of human culture and society) won't work because we are not terribly precise entities. In short, the only useful definitions are the commonly recognized ones (ie SF is essentially what people who read and write it consider to be SF and nothing more). All the examples in the world won't change this fact, because it's fairly certain someone could come up with any equal number of examples that most people would agree were (say) SF that didn't fit.

I think the essential reason for this difference is that human behavior is complex enough that there are no obvious clusterings. In chemistry or zoology there are many ways to cluster and group various phenomena, but there are actually groupings and clusters of phenomena - in the science one is not simply drawing arbitrary circles on a on a nearly uniform surface.

Then again, I'm a postmodernist and do not ever believe that there will be exact laws for any form of human behavior (or of any other sufficiently complex system - I was deeply pleased when I read that the state of weather prediction is such that meteorologists can predict the weather most of the time with a high degree of accuracy, but they also know that there is a large number of situations where conditions are so easily variable that they know that they cannot predict the weather). I love the idea of not living in a fully deterministic universe.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Categorisation - 1500 words of theory

Define. Finite. Infinite - One

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - One

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - One

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - One

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - One

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - One

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - One

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - One

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - One

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - One

Define. Finite. Infinite - Continued - TWO

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - Continued - TWO

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - Continued - TWO

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - Continued - TWO

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - Continued - TWO

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - Continued - TWO

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - Continued - TWO

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - Continued - TWO

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - Continued - TWO

Re: Define. Finite. Infinite - Continued - TWO

I would just like to point out, in my defence...

Re: I would just like to point out, in my defence...

no subject

no subject

no subject