Is moderation the same as balance?Is perfection absolute?

[Russell E. Rierson]

By definition, a quantity that is "perfect" is absolute. That requires perfection to be non-interactive with imperfection, else, perfection would become corrupted by the exchange/interaction. Therefore to observe a perfection while being imperfect, is to corrupt the perfection, rendering it to be "less" than perfect.

Perfection, like nothingness, is unattainable even via conceptualization.

Or is it?

For example, the geometric object known as a circle can exist as a definition, if not as an actualization. The abstract definition tells us certain properties of a curvature with a constant unchanging radius via a 360 degree rotation but can a perfect circle be visualized by the imagination?

In the real world, a perfect circle[or "perfect" geometric object of any kind] cannot exist. Yes the uncertainty principle.

Thus the real world is not perfect. Perfection seems to be prevented via the laws of physics. Nothing is certain, even the laws themselves; they are approximately exact but not exactly exact?

An infinite[and perfect] intellect would be able to have its cake and eat it too. The best of all perfect worlds would be ours, but that is not the case!

Conclusion?

Perfection does not exist.

An infinite intellect does not exist.

 

[Deeviant]

By definition, a quantity that is "perfect" is absolute. That requires perfection to be non-interactive with imperfection, else, perfection would become corrupted by the exchange/interaction. Therefore to observe a perfection while being imperfect, is to corrupt the perfection, rendering it to be "less" than perfect.

Perfection, like nothingness, is unattainable even via conceptualization.

Or is it?

For example, the geometric object known as a circle can exist as a definition, if not as an actualization. The abstract definition tells us certain properties of a curvature with a constant unchanging radius via a 360 degree rotation but can a perfect circle be visualized by the imagination?

In the real world, a perfect circle[or "perfect" geometric object of any kind] cannot exist. Yes the uncertainty principle.

Thus the real world is not perfect. Perfection seems to be prevented via the laws of physics. Nothing is certain, even the laws themselves; they are approximately exact but not exactly exact?

An infinite[and perfect] intellect would be able to have its cake and eat it too. The best of all perfect worlds would be ours, but that is not the case!

Conclusion?

Perfection does not exist.

An infinite intellect does not exist.

Actually, by definition, perfection does not apply to quantity unless there is context. You have provided no context for the perfection of your quantity thus I see your conclusion premature.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

Actually, by definition, perfection does not apply to quantity unless there is context. You have provided no context for the perfection of your quantity thus I see your conclusion premature.

If there is a perfection for context A but that perfection is not perfect for context B then is it really perfect?

So if a person receives a perfect score on a quiz, it is perfect only within the parameters of the definitions.

 

[Deeviant]

If there is a perfection for context A but that perfection is not perfect for context B then is it really perfect?

So if a person receives a perfect score on a quiz, it is perfect only within the parameters of the definitions.

But it also requires interaction with inperfection to derive the context.

 

[olde drunk]

If we (the universe) are in the process of becoming, we will never have absolute perfection. once gained, the game would be over. with an expanding universe this should not ever happen.

philosophically, we (all of us and the world) is as perfect as we need to be at this exact moment. each moment is valid and perfect for the goals of the individual, community, world and universe. regardless of content, each moment provides for the experience that moves us down the road toward fulfillment.

I wonder, if we did achieve a perfect world, would that be the ending big bang that creates a new world? hmmmmmmm


love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Gold Barz]

i don't think there's a limit to perfection, the bar will always be set higher

 

[RAD4921]

Perfection: A subjective term

Like beauty, perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. The Earth rotates both clockwise and counterclockwise depending on where you are standing on the planet. So is the case of "perfection"

 

[Philocrat]

Like beauty, perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. The Earth rotates both clockwise and counterclockwise depending on where you are standing on the planet. So is the case of "perfection"

A perfection based on your definition is no perfection. I have defined this term in this physics forum and elsewhere on the internet in many conceivable ways. Now, let me give you another version:

PERFECTION IS EVERYTHING OVER AND ABOVE MODERATION, UNLESS IF IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BEYOND DOUBT THAT MODERATION IS PERFECTION ITSELF!

If you ask me how is everything in the Universe held together and successfully continued in space-time? I would immediately answer:

NUMERICALLY!...which is equivalentl to saying MODERATELY. But the fundamental problem with this is that Numerical or moderate preservation of things in spacetime is functionally circular. This is deceptive! My claim therefore is that:

MODERATION HAS THE NATURAL CAPACITY TO EPHEMERALLY PRESERVE (ESPECIALLY FORMS OF THINGS) BUT WITHOUT THE NATURAL CAPACITY TO PERFECT.

And my ultimate suspicion is that the human intervention may be needed to do so, at least in the process of perfecting the human form, if any.

 

[RingoKid]

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

seek

accept nothing as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own reality

 

[RAD4921]

The "perfect" poet

Thanks Ringo you just saved me a lot of typing

 

[Entheos]

wouldn't perfection by ominpresense, omnipotent and ominscent all at once?

 

[Imparcticle]

A perfection based on your definition is no perfection. I have defined this term in this physics forum and elsewhere on the internet in many conceivable ways. Now, let me give you another version:

PERFECTION IS EVERYTHING OVER AND ABOVE MODERATION, UNLESS IF IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BEYOND DOUBT THAT MODERATION IS PERFECTION ITSELF!

So if moderation is represented by "7", then perfection greater than or equal to moderation if and only if it can be proven perfection can be equal to "7"?

If you ask me how is everything in the Universe held together and successfully continued in space-time? I would immediately answer:

NUMERICALLY!...which is equivalentl to saying MODERATELY.

Numerical values specify specific, defined, quantitative abstractions whereas moderation is generally used to specify something by approximation based on a subjective definition. I am applying the relationship between "congruence" and "equivalence" to the concepts of "numerical" and "moderation". Congruence and equivalence are only slightly different.

MODERATION HAS THE NATURAL CAPACITY TO EPHEMERALLY PRESERVE (ESPECIALLY FORMS OF THINGS) BUT WITHOUT THE NATURAL CAPACITY TO PERFECT.

And my ultimate suspicion is that the human intervention may be needed to do so, at least in the process of perfecting the human form, if any.

Precisely how is it that you define "moderation"? How much is moderate?