|
[Jun. 25th, 2008|01:17 pm] |
Fractally wrong:
The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time.
If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet--in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums--your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time. |
|
|
| Comments: |
Oh my god, that is exactly the word I needed for this one guy.
It's so very appropriate.
Ooo, I like that one. It encompasses so much more than the phrase "wrong on so many levels."
Wow. I've seen it in action, but never had a term for it before. That makes SO much sense!
And being a moderator/rules-forcer on a Web forum for a Web-based community...man, have had my share of THOSE people....and YOUR share, and HIS share, and HER share.....
<< say your piece once and ignore any replies >>
I tend to do that in general. LOL.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/67387852/207113) | From: kenshi 2008-06-26 12:59 am (UTC)
pedantry | (Link)
|
Technically, it's more correct to say that the person is self-similarly wrong across all scales. "Fractally" wrong suggests that they are only wrong in between dimensional quanta.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/73281918/333372) | From: tdj 2008-06-30 06:15 pm (UTC)
The phase space of Wrong | (Link)
|
Granting that ideas are a result of a complex neurological process governed at root by the laws of physics, ideas - at some level - could be quantized.
I have a strong intuitive sense that Wrong is not a continuous function of anything, though I could be wrong - it could merely be a consequence of extremely steep gradients of Wrong that people are always falling into. | |