Yes it is more of a goal or something to shoot for or even to set the standard of achievement.Lagao said:
Poll: Does perfection exist
- Thread starter krazykidd
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Depends on one's standard for "perfection" (i.e. something that could not be improved upon in any way).
Nothing exist that will be deemed perfect by everyone. But plenty exist that will be deemed perfect by someone.
Of course, if a system of authoritative rules have been set up - such as a set number of points being assigned to each math question answered correctly - then "perfection" within its narrow scope becomes quite possible, as achieving the maximum number of points then cannot be improved upon in any way.
Nothing exist that will be deemed perfect by everyone. But plenty exist that will be deemed perfect by someone.
Of course, if a system of authoritative rules have been set up - such as a set number of points being assigned to each math question answered correctly - then "perfection" within its narrow scope becomes quite possible, as achieving the maximum number of points then cannot be improved upon in any way.
Pi (πHagenzz said:
is, as far as we've been able to define it, an irrational number. Since a perfect circle's area is πr^2, and its circumference is dπ, and π is irrational, it's not possible for it to exist, not even theoretically. Do I need to go into detail about irrational numbers?
Personally I think it's just as impossible to prove that perfection DOESN'T exit than it is to prove that it does. But whether it does or not, using 'nothing is perfect' as an excuse not to give you full marks is total crap. If you got all the questions right, or you didn't write anything that was inherently wrong or poorly expressed, then you should get full marks. Philosophy about the existence of perfection shouldn't come into it. Giving a piece of work full marks is not saying it's perfect, it's saying that it does everything that is required of it correctly and to the required standard. Just because your homework didn't manage to taste like chocolate cake, grant your teacher 3 wishes and be amazing in bed is not a justification to penalise it.
For perfection to exist you need to set parameters for perfection. A score of 300 is a "perfect game" in bowling for example. A "perfect game" in baseball is not letting any batter reach a base for at least 9 innings. A "perfect week" is having sex with 7 women in 7 days without a single rejection. These are all defined terms of perfection that exist and are entirely obtainable. Now it is possible to do things perfectly like tests, classes, sports, etc. However, perfection isn't and can't be a defined term for people to reach. People try to make a definition for perfect outward appearance but that is impossible as beauty varies from each culture.
tl;dr: You can do things perfectly, just not be perfect.
tl;dr: You can do things perfectly, just not be perfect.
no because every ones veiw of perfection is different so mabye if the world came togethere into one people all working togethere for the same goals then mabye perfection could be accomplished.....but then we would have had to evolved into a hive mind of insects for that to happen
I do think there is perfection, but that's because I believe in God. However, I think God is perfect not because God is just God, but because God IS nothing.krazykidd said:
Let me TRY to explain. What is perfect? Nothing is perfect. What was here (in all existence) before everything? Nothing. What is all powerful, all knowing, all doing, ect.? NOTHING.
Most pepole when they "describe" God say that God is/are most of these things. So, if God did really exist before everything, that means God can only be nothing. This fits what you said about there having to be perfection if there was imperfection. The imperfection is Everything, and the perfection is Nothing. Though since I believe in God that changes how I think about this question. If I didn't think God existed I would probably just say nothing is perfect, because for something to be perfect it would have to not be anything, and that would mean that it would have to be nothing and there is no nothing.
However, one's perception of reality will always shape everything they think.
This is how I see it anyway. Nobody "really knows" anything. We just think/believe we know. However, I think you are asking if something besides God can be perfect. To that I would have to say, probably not. Unless he/she/it/they can become nothing.
I see perfection like this:
It exists in the same way mathematical Infinity exists; We know of it as a concept, but can't actually quantify it. It is something that is beyond us (or higher than we could ever count).
What perfection means to us then differs from person to person.
"I can't be perfect, so I won't try to."
"I know I can't be perfect, but I will do my best."
And so on. Including rejection of the concept of perfection entirely.
It exists in the same way mathematical Infinity exists; We know of it as a concept, but can't actually quantify it. It is something that is beyond us (or higher than we could ever count).
What perfection means to us then differs from person to person.
"I can't be perfect, so I won't try to."
"I know I can't be perfect, but I will do my best."
And so on. Including rejection of the concept of perfection entirely.
Pi being an irrational number doesn't prevent it from having application, or being able to be regarded in mathematics in its irrational state.GeorgW said:Pi (π
It is true that a perfect circle is improbable even throughout the whole of the universe, but not for want of a rational pi. Indeed, only a few digits of pi would be enough to measure the universe to uncanny precision (say with an error of less than a meter). Pi isn't the problem.
The problem is chaos, the little microimperfections in the paper or the compass that would cause deviation in the radius, as the compass is spun. One cannot draw a perfect circle because the medium and tools are inexact, not because a circle is mathematically impossible to represent numerically.
238U.
It can't be drawn, but that's not the problem. It can't even be conceived. Unless pi is rational we can theoretically only get a circle that's indistinguishably close to perfect, but never perfect. What you're trying to say is that uncanny precision is perfection, and I can't possibly agree with you.Uriel-238 said:Pi being an irrational number doesn't prevent it from having application, or being able to be regarded in mathematics in its irrational state.GeorgW said:Pi (π
It is true that a perfect circle is improbable even throughout the whole of the universe, but not for want of a rational pi. Indeed, only a few digits of pi would be enough to measure the universe to uncanny precision (say with an error of less than a meter). Pi isn't the problem.
The problem is chaos, the little microimperfections in the paper or the compass that would cause deviation in the radius, as the compass is spun. One cannot draw a perfect circle because the medium and tools are inexact, not because a circle is mathematically impossible to represent numerically.
238U.
What a load of old crap.standokan said:
Attaining perfection would mean you never would stop striving, since to do so would mean you think you are perfect, a flaw.
Perfection is an abstract concept, like the perfect circle, theoretically possible but practically unobtainable.
Arent pertpetual motion machines perfect? So anything we can make close to them is about as perfect as perfect is.
Actually that isn't what I was saying.GeorgW said:
A circle can be easily conceived. All the points whose distance from a singular stationary point is r is a circle. In polar coordinates, any function in which rho = c. Bam. Circle. Neither of these functions necessarily involve pi. Pi is the ratio of circumfrence to diameter, and it can be computed, but is irrelevant to the conception of a circle.
I don't think conceive means what you think it means.
238U.
"The thing about perfection is that it's unknowable! It's impossible, but it's also right in front of us, all the time! You wouldn't know that because I didn't know it when I created you! And I'm sorry, Clu... I'm sorry!" -Kevin Flynn (I don't care what anyone says, that movie was awesome.)
It depends, if perfect is the same as 'ideal' like pluto's ideal forms, then hell no, and I really dislike his philosophy because it forever ruined people's ability to understand evolution.
If perfection is the same as ideal, then something can always be improved.
For example: from the perspective of a human who enjoys living, the universe could be 'more perfect' because the vast majority of it will kill us instantly. But it isn't.
If perfection is the same as ideal, then something can always be improved.
For example: from the perspective of a human who enjoys living, the universe could be 'more perfect' because the vast majority of it will kill us instantly. But it isn't.