i think the main stumbling block we're falling over in trying to understand each other lies in the application more than the definition of the idea of perfection. let me explain myself. several adjectives can only be used to describe certain things. perfect, however, we would like to apply to many things across several contexts. alright, but how does that work? perfect perhaps comes across as a... ooh, the word escapes me, and my english teachers back to the beginning would hate me. ah, superlative. perfect seems like a superlative. but why? wouldn't we just say "the best pen" if we meant a pen that was better than all the others? why a perfect pen? what is the difference between being perfect and being the best? let me run with this.

when we compare things (and whether perfect compares things then is another seeming point of contention in this thread... i'll return to this) we normally find it easier to compare the parts, functionalities, etc. for example, when comparing sports teams, we may compare the strategies, team players, coaches, budgets, etc. we rarely say "team a is better than team b". much more rarely do we say "team a is the best team of them all" or "team a is perfect." what does making a statement like that mean? is it not just a generalization? a simplification? can we compare any two similar objects without comparing its attributes?

you see, i don't believe it's possible. everything can only really be talked about by analyzing the smaller building blocks that make it up. where we stop is determined by our scope, or purpose, in doing the comparison or evaluation. this seems clear to me but let me make what i hope will be a decent example. say you want to measure a certain amount of liquid, perhaps... water for a pool. you could use an eye dropper and get the precise amount, or you could just put the hose in and "guestimate" it. however, if you're measuring out liquid nitrogen in a chemistry lab, you might decided to go for the eye dropper and let the guys at the next bench over use the hose.

so how can we compare or judge things based on a given set of criteria? simply put, we must establish what we're judging on. to say that something's the best or perfect just because doesn't seem very logical. say perhaps we compare to cookies, a and b. if we define our set of criteria to be "sweetest" then cookie a wins. if our criterium is "least fattening" cookie b wins. if we say, which one is the better cookie? without specifying any criteria, it must be a tie because both are cookies, and meet the sole criterium equally.

now actually my last statement has one logical prerequisite, that is, that something can be 'perfect' in and of itself. if a cookie cannot be perfect in that it exists as a cookie, then the cookies equally fail at being the best. what does it mean to be perfect then? it is hard to speak of something being the best when there's only one of the thing and we aren't comparing it to anything else. to speak of better and best implies comparison. you see, i believe perfection in closer to evaluation than comparison. evaluation means to assess the value of something. if i were to ask whether an apple or an orange was better for eating than the other, one cannot reply without implying a criterium to compare them. apples can be eaten, and oranges can be eaten. wood can be eaten. hell, lots of things can be eaten. so is it better to eat rubber or bread? without criteria, explicit or implicit, it is impossible to argue the point in question. hence, good, bad, ugly, and perfect all depend on criteria. however, "perfect" is less like "good" and "bad" and more like "ugly". the idea of perfection can be applied to anything, in fact several things, as long as it works.

when you ask "how do we find the perfect pen", my response is "decide what it means for a pen to be perfect." if you don't even know what you're looking for, you'll never find it. and who will argue with you? someone using different criteria, i can promise you that.

hmm, and back to the idea about infinity. this subject is a bit tangential to the discussion at hand, so i'll try to be brief, but the inability to do one things does not mean we can't do an unlimited number of things. what you're implying is that by counting from 3 to infinity we count fewer numbers than if we had started at 2, or even 1. i hope you unterstand what i mean at this point.

oh, and 666, i've been thinking about objects that may be intended for two different purposes. surprisingly enough, not much comes to mind. however, perhaps that phrase saves all. what about the human mind? what is its purpose? to think? but isn't thinking by its very nature a multi-purpose endeavor? or perhaps the personal computer. it can be used for several things. i think this goes back to the fact that we can and must look at everything at a certain level of detail that's convenient for what we're trying to do. you could argue that a computer is "made for computing" and that the "mind is made for thinking", but can we really lump such actions into one group?

alternatively, why does an object's purpose have to be decided upon by its maker? i know i said it earlier, and now, thanks mainly to your post and example of coke, have rethought and reformulated that hatchling idea into something hopefully more difficult to punch holes in (not that i'm upset you did, but i do give credit where credit is due). perhaps an object's purpose is determined not by the person who's making it but by the person who must use it, interact with it, or experience it? i think purposes can change. although the inventors of coke intended to use it as medicine, it can still satisfy other criteria. a baseball bat, though made for playing a delightful sport, can be used as a weapon, a wooden leg, or an instrument with which to pleasure one's self. if under any guise it fulfills the requirements, surely it can be perfect? and it can be perfect for some and not for others, and only some of the time, etc. and light bulbs: the same ideas apply. let me give a case (it might look like math but i swear it's not)

criterion 1: alpha
criterion 2: beta

lightbulb 1: a
lightbulb 2: b

perfection?
- by alpha alone
- a: no
- b: yes
- by beta alone
- a: yes
- b: no
- by alpha and beta
- a: no
- b: no

better?
- by alpha and beta with emphasis on alpha
- a: worst
- b: best
- by alpha and beta with emphasis on beta
- a: best
- b: worst
- by alpha and beta with equal emphasis on alpha and beta
- a: same
- b: same

th examples above illustrate how i think perfection and being better works. note that nothing has to be perfect, depending on the criteria chosen. let me know if anything i said is either wrong or unclear. i need some bed...