Poll: Does perfection exist

[crudus]

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.

 

[Hamish Durie]

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

 

[Ekonk]

Depending on how you define perfection, it's either everywhere or nowhere.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I hear this all the time : Nobody is perfect. Or in school teachers will tell you ' I can't give you 100% because perfection doesn't exist'.My question to you is , does/can perfection exist.

I think it does. If imperfection exist then consequently perfection must exist. If perfection is attainable is a completly different question , but it's existance must be there in my opinion. If something ( anything )can be improved, or degraded, then at some point it should be able to reach its peak , to reach a state where it can no longer be improved , thus being perfect.

Now heres another thought, people often say nobody is perfect, but i have wondered if this was true, with the billions of imperfect people in the world (current and past ), couldn't there, theoretically ,be one that IS perfect ? OR on the contrary , because everyone is 'not perfect' we would all be on the same level , thus making us all perfect ( think of it in terms of common denominator ).

What do you think? Does perfection exist ? or are we just chasing after the wind.

( By 'we' i mean people who seek perfection )

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.

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.

 

[AlmostLikeLife]

Perfection does exist. In the flesh, even!

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Pi (&#960 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?

Pi being an irrational number doesn't prevent it from having application, or being able to be regarded in mathematics in its irrational state.

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.

 

[GeorgW]

Pi (&#960 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?

Pi being an irrational number doesn't prevent it from having application, or being able to be regarded in mathematics in its irrational state.

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.

 

[Hoplon]

I'll leave it to Kurotsuchi the mad scientist from Bleach:

"There is nothing in this world that is truly "perfect". Though it may be a rather large cliché, it is still the truth. It is the ordinary people who look up to "perfection" as an ideal and seek after it. But in truth, what is this idea of "perfection" truly worth? Nothing. Not a single thing. I detest "perfection". To be "perfect" is to be unable to improve any further. There would be no scope for "creation", not a single gap in one's knowledge or one's ability. Do you see now? To true scientists like you and I, "Perfection" is tantamount to "despair". We aspire to reach greater levels of brilliance than ever before, but never, NEVER, to reach perfection. That is the paradox through which we scientists must struggle. Indeed, it is our duty to find pleasure in that struggle. In other words, the second you allowed yourself to spout a ridiculous word like "perfect", in truth, you had already been defeated. That is if you wish to be treated as a scientist."

What a load of old crap.

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.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Arent pertpetual motion machines perfect? So anything we can make close to them is about as perfect as perfect is.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

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.

Actually that isn't what I was saying.

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.

 

[Spaceparanoid42]

"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.)

 

[Baneat]

I guess math is "technically" perfect, but regarding physical a physical construct or being, no.

It's like that saying though, "for something to be beautiful, it has to have a bit of ugly" (paraphrased).

Perfect within its own set of rules

But not generally perfect.

But that argument is plainly Petitio Principii

 

[martin's a madman]

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.

 

[let's rock]

Yes, have you ever heard John Myung's bass chords? or Steve Perry's voice? Or Jimi Hendrix's guitar playing? Perfection.

 

[GamerAddict7796]

In a way yes! Those moments where you're sat there and think "Life couldn't get any better." That is perfection!

 

[GeorgW]

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.

Actually that isn't what I was saying.

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.

Circle, maybe. I don't want to argue about the definition of a circle. But a perfect circle, as was requested, has to in some way involve pi, which makes it impossible. It can be computed, yes, but as of now not exactly. So once again, we could come as close to a perfect circle as is ever needed, but it won't be perfect.

 

[Captain Pancake]

It's entirely subjective, one man's interpretation is different from another's. As such, since it cannot please everyone it is by definition imperfect. Ergo, Perfection= paradox.

 

[deus-ex-machina]

I'll leave it to Kurotsuchi the mad scientist from Bleach:

"AWESOMENESS"

I love the fact you quoted that guy. He's amazing.

 

[SvenSirupSon]

Does perfection exist ?

Yes i do exist xD