to get technichal to be infinite all possibilities most be plausable at the same moment in time, so can you exist and not exist at the same moment in time?

second if we cant sprout wings and fly then the possiblieties available to us are limited circumnavigating that limitation does not negate that limitation from being subtracted from the total number of available possibilites

because something is made for a purpose does not make it perfect nor does the intent of its use. what Sixxs defintion means is that the pen is a perfect in that it "IS" a pen it can not be anything else whether used as a murder weapon or a writing device it is still a pen. This defintion I think applies mostly in the context of communcation ie when you say pen I picture a pen and not a goat.

Happiness in no way relates to perfection

You examples of a king a prisoner are not very good by the way, what food is good for one and not the other is totally subjective

lets consider a standard for a moment one for global poltics how about world peace. You can achieve it in alot of diffrent ways you could try and do it through military might and genicide like Hitlar or through the convert or die mentality of violent islam or your could take the western approach of all men are created equal. Is anyone of these methods less perfect if the end result is world peace?

I've read through both of your arguments with a very open mind. I don't have any real stance concerning "perfection," but I think that you're both right and both wrong. (Although, I must admit that I'm leaning towards Apostate's reasoning just a little more...and, I actually thought the prisoner/king example was good. Why do you not like it Burning? I mean, it is subjective, and as such subjectivity is the very basis of the objective.)

Anyway, I'm very curious and interested in both of your arguments, and as such I wish to pick away at your theories (with an open mind) to help further search out a philosophical notion of "perfection" (mainly because, in all my years studying philosophy, never did I come across a notion).

I've come across this argument before (but I can't remember where). But I like the argument. When one thinks of A, it is often times correlated with B. What lies between A and B is the "purpose." The pen is used to write...when we think of a pen, we think of writing. Yet, when we think of writing, we don't always think of the pen. And as such, when we think of the object in question (the pen), we usually infer the idea of writing, but do we always? Now, there's all sorts of arguments that can dance around this idea: 1. Having no prior knowledge of a pen or it's capabilities, what one experiences with the pen (such as, a primative tribe stubbling across a pen and using it to stab an animal) is what one would generally infer about said object; 2. all experience with said object can infer it's purpose; 3. all purposes are equal; and yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.

But let us take another object with multiple purposes and expand on this idea that what we generally always infer is in relation to the experience and that objective purpose...but does one purpose out weigh another?

***********************FUCKIN' HELL***********************

Okay, I just wanted to add that lil' oddity for the mere sake of conveying the frustration I just underwent. I was sitting here, writing this, when my prior stanza was leading me into the direction of discussing an object with two seperate, yet equal, intended purposes. Only, I couldn't think of one! You try it! What has two seperate, yet equal purposes?! I was so stumped that I asked my girlfriend and we spent nearly 45 minutes thinking together until she fell asleep. We thought: television--to entertain and inform...yet, it doesn't work because either way it's communication. Then we thought: fire--it can be used to illuminate, destroy, cook, or heat...but I don't know, something about that just doesn't seem to fit the idea of having seperate, yet equal intended purposes. And then, I thought about something people collect, like comic books--it can be intended for entertainment, or merely for the sake collecting (like monetary value)...but, either way it's for personal enjoyement.

So I don't know...I'm stumped. Either of you have an idea of what has two seperate, yet equal intended purposes?!

Anyway, the idea I was trying to convey is that if indeed there is such an object with two seperate, yet intended purposes (and I'm sure there is one), then is not the idea of the object in question thereby withdrawn from it's other reference? How does this effect the idea of perfection?

Bah!

Moving on...

This is in part tied into Heidegger's notion of the essence of the thing. However, to side step that...when I read that line I immediately thought of the beverage Coke. More specifically, a carbonated beverage. I forget who and how, but if you look it up, you'll discover that the carbonated beverage known as pop/soda was originally created for medicinal purposes. However, what they discovered was that it made a tasty beverage rather than a medicine. How do we judge such an item? Do we say it's flawed in its intention, or perfect in its accidental contribution?

I like what you have stated here. A Bic pen is indeed a perfect source for a writing a utensil, but that does not mean the Bic pen in question is the perfect pen. I think this is a good counter-argument to Apostate's, but I think Apostate does have a point when he speaks of standards.

For example, what is the perfect pen? Of all the pens, which are all perfect writing utensils, which is the perfect one? Well, does it not depend of the standard...or rather, in the situation? For example, a space pen (which was invented in that the ink doesn't rely on gravity...ever try writing with a pen pointed up? Sooner or later, the ink won't reach the tip). However, a space pen can be written in any direction chosen and the ink will always reach the tip. However, I still agree with you in that: the technology applied here can be applied to all pens...ergo, a felt-tip and ball-point with this capacity: which is more perfect?

But nevertheless, is there not a situation where an object out weighs the ability of all the other objects of similarity or relative equalness? Which makes for better reading light: a halogen light bulb or a flourecent light bulb? Obviously, the halogen...but, like you said: which is more perfect: the 40 watt halogen light bulb or the 75 watt halogen light bulb? Does preference matter in this situation...does preference lead us in determing perfection? However, the fact that the halogen light bulb makes for better reading light than the flourescent light bulb is an example of how two objects with the same purpose (that is, an object of illumination with very similar characteristics) can be based by standards and situations.

the kings story

what your trying to prove is a thing is perfect because it has a purpose

breads purpose is sustance and the waters is hydration

The example

bread and water are perfect for a prisoner = t

bread and water are perfect for a king = f

so as exampled what your trying to prove a thing is perfect because it has a purpose = F

This examply describes a standard of perfection which is what he is describing but its not the defintion hes using.

Look there is two kinds of perfection one is that a thing is what it is a pen "is" a pen, whether or not it works, it is a pen. Ergo it can be nothing else there for it is perfect, ie nothing ditractes from making it a pen nothing adds to it to make it more then a pen. Now lets take it a step further pen also has a purpose which is to write once you asgin a purpose to it you then autmaticaly asign it a standard ie it to be perfect it must be a pen but it also must write. Perfection in this case, and as it relates to the subject would be: this is THE perfect pen, it is unequaled amongst its peers. Can this truly be determened?

Okay, forget the prisoner/king argument. I can't help but sense that you're attacking me and not the discussion at hand. I assumed that you read my last post, but all of this:

Makes me think that either A. my last post was too jarbled in it's argument and you didn't understand; or B. you read my last post with some sort of bias (as if you're slightly agitated with me or apostate and/or this discussion on a whole).

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...

I just thought I'd throw this out there for shits and giggles...

Sartre wrote a very interesting essay concerning this idea (although, from my recollection, he didn't necessarily apply it as a means in understanding perfection objectively). His essay was "What Is Writing" and it mainly concerned itself with defining which example of writing is the best. And in that regard, perfect.

First, let me give some round-about knowledge in a very broad sense.

STYLES OF WRITING:
Poetic
Prose
Surreal
Experimental
Ambiguous
(...that about covers it)

SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT:
Reader/writer response--the idea that a piece of writing, the theme, entails not only what the writer meant, but also what the reader extracts. As such, the theme is virtually open to interpretation on many levels. The writer felt the theme on a personal level as being equivalent to A (say, apathy), while reader 1 felt the theme on a personal level as being equivalent to B (say, depression), while reader 43 felt the theme on a personal level as being equivalent to X13 (say, a farce).

Writer's intended purpose--pretty self explanatory.

Deconstructionism--first proposed by a French philosopher of yester-year, deconstructionism was one of the first proposals against metaphysics (to compare it to a more modern day understanding, think of behaviorism). In the literary world, deconstructionism also borderlines this philosophy in that the theme of a piece can be dissected into its literal phrases until all of its subjects have been defined.

DECONSTRUCTIONISM IN LITERATURE (an example):
I'm drinking beer.
--I'm = a pronoun in present tense indicating a certain individual (the narrator).
--drinking = a verb which indicates the swallowing of a liquid.
--beer = a particular type of drink made from barley or hops.

BUT IT DOESN'T STOP THERE...you half to then dissect each individual word in the definition (such as "a" "pronoun" "in" and et cetera) and thereby dissect all of those words, and those words, and so on and so on and so on until eventually, every word has been defined.


Now, onto the philosophy aspect.

It was Sartre's notion that of all the forms of art, writing is the best, the most perfect, and the only that can truly describe itself. For example: a dead tree. If an artist or a photographer were to capture this, that's all they've merely done. They've took an object and showed it to us. It's left to our interepretation as it's meaning. A writer, on the other hand, if he were to install this imagery, it comes without saying that it has more meaning. The dead tree can represent any number of things: society, personal reflection, the result of a dry season, et cetera. In short, a writer has more tools which can help identify the essence of a dead tree. However, depending on the style, the essence is questioned.

For example(s):

POETIC:
West of the city,
The wayward wanderer,
Slept underneath a dead tree.

What is the significance of the dead tree? Does indicate the absence of life in that a wayward wanderer often lives primatively in comparrison to modern times? Or is the tree an indication that nature can grow calm and quiet, while a city is always active and alive? Or does it indicate something entirely different?

PROSE:
The maple tree in my backyard, which was there ever since we moved into our home 15 years ago, is now dead.

The indication here is simple. A tree, which is located in a specific area (the backyard of the narrator) is now dead.

AMBIGUOUS:
Yesterday I went to the doctor. I have AIDS. That bitch! I loved her...she broke my heart. She broke my heart and gave me AIDS. Such is the way of life. To calm myself and reassure myself everything would be okay, I took my journal with me to write underneath that dead maple tree in my backyard. It's the very tree, underneath which, I first told Marie I loved her.

Again, the significance of the dead tree is open to debate. However, it's more concrete. The tree represents either (and both simultaneously) A. the death of love; B. death.


Now, going back to Sartre, it was his argument that out of all the styles of writing, prose is by far the most perfect. It is the only form which is deliberate in its aim, not open to interpretation, and yet can qualify as artistic.

Now, in keeping with our discussions, we all agree that each and all aspects are in someway perfect in themselves. Poetic phrasing is perfect for poetry which is perfect for artistic writing which is perfect in conveying a theme/emotion. But it's too figurative. Although poetry may be the perfect form from conveying an emotion, it's open to interpretation. Even then, you have many styles: slam poetry, prose poetry, lyrical poetry, haikus, epic poetry; and it encorporates a number of tools: meter, rhyme, rhyme-scheme, pure prose, structure. So, what's the perfect poem in conveying a dead tree? Who's the perfect poet?

Ergo, when writing in prose, one can only convey the literal meaning of the piece. A prose piece is perfect in not only conveying this and that, but it's the perfect form of writing in that each word can only convey this and that. It follows a set of rules (adhering to standards) and does so perfectly.

excellent that you included this little digression, 666. i too see the parallels between this and our discussion. and sartre's ideas seem relevant to the topic at hand. more importantly, they're interesting - and seem to contain some of the things that have actually come out so far.

it seems that for sartre, everything is perfect in its own right, but can be perfect in different measures. that is to say, one thing can be more perfect than another. this is an angle that i hadn't really seen the problem from before. another thing that jumps out is his presumption of objective perfection, ie that prose is more perfect than poetry because prose is less open to interpretation (and hence less likely to be used incorrectly, or for anything but the objectively intended purpose).

you seem to agree with sartre on these points, or at least i gather as much from your not expressing any objections to sartre's arguments. hmmm.

perhaps we should run down a different road for a while, maybe on a sartre-induced tangent, and see if we can't get to the final answer down another road? we've been following the current one for a while, and i think it has helped us define the question very well, and given us good insight towards a conclusive answer. now, for the prompt...

road #1: deconstructionism. let's deconstruct it to try to make sense of the objective / subjective / intrinsic / extrinsic side of the nature of perfection.

road #2: the relationship between the risk of something being open to interpretation and its perfection. how does perfection depend on its makers intentions and others' interpretations?

road #3: what is the difference between being the best and perfect? is there any difference? what is the relationship between being perfect and being the best?

if anyone else has any suggested roads to run down, please suggest one, or post on any one of the three above. it just seems to me the flow of new ideas has slowed to a trickle in this thread, and we could very well make good headway on a very interesting (and perhaps less usual) philosophical question.

oh, and 666, i think i remember something about plato's forms, or figures, too. weren't they like the pure ideas extracted from the instances of them in the material world? or something. i think that could offer immense insight into our problem.

and what do you think, theburningbush? do you have any ideas of how we could further expand on this? i might even make a new thread here pretty soon so that all the other members can post and what not. i'll include a link to this thread so everyone can see what we've been up to...

Sixx sorry man I was being chastizied about mowing the lawn from the wife at the time of my last posting. On a bright note the mowing gave me time to think on the subject at hand.

back to the begining perhaps it will help

I stated perfection cannot be described.

which lead to Aps providing the follow defintion a thing is perfect if it made for a pupose .

Sixx brought in the bit about a thing is what it is

ok why is this definition "a thing is perfect if it is made for a pupose" wrong (it ties into the rest thats why i bring it up)

one: this definition describes the process as perfect not the thing for example you want a pen you make a pen you now have a pen. The idea of the pen is perfect the making of the pen is perfect and the pen itself is perfect. But lets say you wanted a pen, went throught the process of making it and ended up with a hammer. The idea was perfect and the hammer is perfect but the process isnt so the defintion describes the process not the thing.

two: why do we make a thing. because we want the thing? sometimes. we make a thing for three reasons. economic benfit (I can make the pen cheaper then i could buy it), I can make the pen better (my ink lasts for 10 years) or the thing doesnt exist but there is a need for it (the space pen) you will note that all of these indicate something imperfect about the orginal product.

Sixxs a thing is a thing. a thing is perfect as it is that thing. This must hold true and makes alot of sense where would we be if a pen could also be a goat and river and a space ship.

So "THE" thing is perfect if it pasts two tests 1. It is what it is 2. It is unequaled for its intended pupose.

Best vs Perfect. Think the famous Georgetown Villinova game

The best team in the nation by far was Georgetown but they lost to Villinova, why because Villinova played a perfect game. If Georgetown was a perfect team they would be unbeatable no matter what Villinova did.

Briefly on infinite possibilities. the idea is the same as nothing being impossible, by saying something is impossible you have reduced the number of possiblities to be somthing less then inifinte.

well, theburningbush, i think a large part of your disagreement with me lies in the fact that you've either not fully understood my most recent arguments, either because they didn't make sense to you or i didn't do a good job of explaining them. either way, let me try again to correct this error (and there is an error, and i would like to come to an understanding with you, because i believe i follow your arguments and would like to make sure you understand my ramblings).

although i initially stated that perfection is the state of being made for a purpose, i have since ammended that. that is to say, it is not the maker that necessarily bestows the purpose on an object. the purpose of something depends on the individual who interacts with it. the purpose of an object is very close to, if not coinciding with, its very existence. this is closer to my current view on the subject. however, i still consider something's existence to be different from its purpose, or usage, or meaning. for example. a pen cannot be simply 'perfect', but it can be perfect to right with, perfect to kill a man with, etc. to say that a pen is perfect because it is a pen and nothing else seems too broad a definition to be useful, and by my very argument is thus not perfect (except of course at not providing a useful definition of perfection, at which it is perfect. note that 666 did not intend his argument not to be useful, but it is according to me. and i'm not saying 666's definition is wrong or pointless, i'm just pointing out that when a word applies to everything you might as well not even say it.) certainly not everything can be qualified as 'a perfect thing to write with'. however, exactly why this is such is not so clear to me. why then is a goat not a perfect thing to write with? by my definition, perfection is obviously subjective and based on perspective, unconstant, etc. perfection is not an intrinsic quality of an object. it's given to it by us. hmmm...

the process of making a thing can only factor into its perfection if the process of making the thing is included in the criteria for the perfection of the pen. that is to say, whether a thing is perfect or not does not depend, say, on how much it costs to make it, unless i define perfection as being "cheap", "expensive", etc.

oh and when i asked what the difference between perfection and being the best was, i asked it not because it was ambiguous by my definition but because it was ambiguous by the usual connotation of perfection.

and finally on the borderline of our discussion, it is not mathematically true that by limiting a quantity which may otherwise be infinite you can make the quanitity anything less than infinite. and when you say that "possibilities are infinite" and "impossibilities are zero" means the same thing, you are making an error in logic. if i say "an elephant is heavy", it does not mean that "everything that is not an elephant is not heavy". this lies at the foundation of aristotelian logic and if you hope to deny this, you must also admittedly leave behind standard logic and find another means of expressing your ideas. if you choose to defend said statement, you are actively expressing your rejection of traditional logic.

Purpose does not change the thing. A pen remains a pen if it is used as a muder weapon or used to write with. Furthermore a pen is still a pen even if it does not write. Also the abaility to write does not make something a pen for example a pencil is not a pen. So as a pen the pen is perfect it can be no more no less then a pen (singular). However that does not make it the THE perfect pen (plural) which implies that there is something by which a comparission can be made usally as it relates to some pupose. So an object is perfect in its existince but may or may not be perfect in its intended purpose

Is a pen that is cheaper more perfect then a pen that is more expensive all else being equal?

by saying that there is a limiting quantity you must accept that the quantity is not infinite to begin with. In other words if something is impossible the pool of possibilities does not include it and was by defintion not infinite to begin with. I did not say possibilities were ininfite nor did I say that impossibilities were zero. You elphant example under Aristotales logic means that if you are an elephant you are heavy, you would not infer "if you are not an elephant you are not heavy" from that statement because the statement does not draw a correlation between anything except the Elephant and heavy, logicaly you would come up with this If I am not an Elephant then I am either less heavy equaly heavy or more heavy as i relate to an elephant

on your first point, i never said the purpose we give to an object changes the object. whether we use the pen to write with, kill a man, or masturbate doesn't change the fact that it is still a pen, and is perfect (by my and 666's and your) definition. everything is perfect at being what it is. my problem with this definition is "buh-duh". perfection can then be applied to everything equally and thus makes no real sense. and i never said a pen ceases to be a pen if it does not write. it does not even cease to be a perfect pen. and like i've been trying to say, when we say 'a perfect pen' we do not mean 'the perfect pen'. you agree with this. 'the perfect pen' is better than all its peers. in fact, it can even be the best possible pen. but to call a pen the best, to compare pens, makes no sense unless you list the aspects of the pen you are comparing. this is what i think you do not grasp. to say that pen a is better than pen b is meaningless unless we establish how the pens are to be judged. and you cannot simply state 'in every aspect', because then it is ambiguous. something cannot be the best at everything, unless you establish everything in which it can exceed its peers. and i never said an object couldn't be imperfect. sometimes, something must be imperfect for us to even need to speak of perfection. like i said, when perfection applies equally to everything it loses meaning.

say i have a feather and a hammer. i want to kill a man. i decided i want to beat him over the head with an object. i'm trying to decide which instrument would be perfect. if i use absolute standards for perfection, such as saying 'the perfect object to kill him with will weigh at least 15lbs", then perhaps neither object is perfect, and i decided not to try. but if my standard is based on comparison, "the perfect object is the heaviest object", i choose the hammer and attempt murder. the hammer is perfect in the second case and not in the first. now say the man is deathly allergic to feathers. the feather then becomes the easiest way to kill him, and if my standard is "the object which kills the easiest" it becomes more perfect than the hammer. see what i'm saying?

and your question about the pen, like i've said, makes use of the fairy-tale like definition of perfection by which all possible comparisons, even ones we could never imagine or understand, go in favor of one object all the time for every subjective observer. no such perfection exists.

that is not true. there are an infinite number of integers, whole numbers, counting numbers, etc. just because these numbers don't contain fractional numbers makes absolutely no difference. and there aren't any more rational numbers than there are integers. by limiting an infinite quantity one does not reduce the quantity. and you did most certainly equate my saying "possibilities are infinite" with "impossibilities are zero". such an equation is false. you seem to acknowledge this and thus disprove your own previous argument.

it seems like you're looking for an objective definition of perfection, but i'm telling you there is no useful one.

I think for some reasons you miss what iam writing its probably my fault so ill try it like this.

compare two objects ie a pen and a goat apply a single pupose to both objects and decide which better fulfills that purpose the one that better fulfills that purpose is more perfect then the other. Now if one object could not be improved upon it would be the perfect at fulfilling that purpose. As you said it is impossible to know this which is guess what my exact point that started the enitire debate. However it is possible that an object may be perfect at fulfilling a pupose it just cant be determined.

no I said if inifnite possiblities exist then there can be zero impossiblities. in other words the total number of impossiblities must = 0. Which of course it doesnt you have stated that impossiblities = atleast 1. By defintion you cant do ininifty - 1 so if impossibilities >= 1 you cant have possilbilities = ininity you have possibilities < infinity or a finite number of possiblities.



Lets say we had two pens a and b

Read through most of the posts, but alas, I have to get ready for work...see you guys later.