The Dink Network

I know of the socratic method, not a lot, although I (probably ignorantly) believe my 'argument' couldn't be challenged with it. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of truth. How, for example a binary bit, lets say 1 cannot be broken down into it's constituent parts as the reductionist scientist in me strives to do. I suppose I am talking about a theoretical 1 as any 'real' or concieved 1 is there for a number of quantifiable reasons, more facts which are true because of 'xyz' which perhaps invalidates my argument as I am talking about what does exist, not what theoretically can exist. And, of course perhaps I'm just talking out my ass and I don't even realise it. Although... Right now I believe reductionism only works up to a point and that is absurd.

Or y'know... god did it .

But aye, question away.