Does that mean Perfection is Impossible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DR_henegar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Impossible Mean
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the paradox of whether perfection is impossible if nothing is deemed impossible. Participants explore the ambiguity of terms like "nothing," "impossible," and "perfection," leading to different interpretations. Examples from sports, such as bowling and golf scores, illustrate how perfection can be perceived as both achievable and unachievable based on context. The conversation also touches on the nature of paradoxes, with some arguing that contradictions in statements do not necessarily constitute true paradoxes. Ultimately, the dialogue highlights the complexity of defining perfection and the implications of logical reasoning.
DR_henegar
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I think this is a Paradox, but I thought of it and I'm not sure. Can anyone confirm. The paradox is as follows:
If it is said Nothing is Impossible, but you cannot be perfect, does that mean Perfection is Impossible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


The statements may be logically paradoxical, but it has nothing to do with reality.

i.e. you could prove that the construction of the statements alone contradict each other (if I is an empty set, yet P is in I, then P is paradoxical.), but so what? The meaning of the words in your statements are ambiguous. Define "nothing", define "impossible", define "perfection".

Question: are you interested in discussing pure logic, or are you interested in the applications of logic?
 


It depends on how you define perfection. If you define perfect as the highest score possible in a video game, then if someone achieves that score, they achieved perfection.
 


I like Applications of Logic. And Perfection is defined as this in my perspective: "A status that is higher than anyone else, but unreachable." And I had another related paradox...or maybe not..."Nothing is Impossible" and then say "It is Impossible to do nothing"
 


DR_henegar said:
And Perfection is defined as this in my perspective: "A status that is higher than anyone else, but unreachable."
Hm. According to your definition:

A "perfect" score in golf is 54. It's the best ever achieved (regardless of the fact that, in theory, it is possible to achieve an 18).
http://golf.about.com/od/faqs/f/lowestscore.htm


Contrarily, a 300 in bowling (though it is impossible to do better, even in theory) is not a perfect score because it is achievable.
 


DaveC426913 said:
Hm. According to your definition:

A "perfect" score in golf is 54. It's the best ever achieved (regardless of the fact that, in theory, it is possible to achieve an 18).
http://golf.about.com/od/faqs/f/lowestscore.htm


Contrarily, a 300 in bowling (though it is impossible to do better, even in theory) is not a perfect score because it is achievable.

You may have my idea, but wrong point...the last two words are the key words of my definition.
 


Does it bother you that the platonic ideal of every ellipse whose minor and major axes differ by less than the size of an atom could be considered a perfect sphere under that definition?

All these things are only paradoxes if you accept that nothing is impossible, which is unlikely
 


DR_henegar said:
You may have my idea, but wrong point...the last two words are the key words of my definition.

I was specifically addressing your last two words.

One of your criteria of perfection is that "it is unachievable". Thus, according to you, a 300 score in bowling is not a perfect score, since violates your criterion.
 


DR_henegar said:
You may have my idea, but wrong point...the last two words are the key words of my definition.

But 300 is the perfect score in bowling. That is perfection so far as that game goes. The goal is completely achievable.

As DaveC pointed out, the lowest score in golf is 18 - perfection, but the odds of you getting that are extremely slim and as such can be considered unachievable (that is, unless you're kim jong il and his family).
 
  • #10


jarednjames said:
As DaveC pointed out, the lowest score in golf is 18 - perfection, but the odds of you getting that are extremely slim and as such can be considered unachievable (that is, unless you're kim jong il and his family).

My argument was two-pronged, refuting each of his criteria independently:

1] A state that is unachievable. It is quite obvious that, in some cases, perfection is quite achievable (the bowling example).

2] A state that is merely better than everyone else. (the golfing example - According to his definition, any golf score less than 54 is "perfect" (since it is "better than anyone else")).
 
  • #11


jarednjames said:
But 300 is the perfect score in bowling. That is perfection so far as that game goes. The goal is completely achievable.

As DaveC pointed out, the lowest score in golf is 18 - perfection, but the odds of you getting that are extremely slim and as such can be considered unachievable (that is, unless you're kim jong il and his family).

What does Kim Jong Il have to do with this..and what do you mean about him?
 
  • #13


I love paradoxes. How about this one. If you can see the future, then you can't change it. For it you changed it, then what you saw was wrong. So you can't be both omnipotent and omniscient. How cool is that?
 
  • #14


Jimmy Snyder said:
I love paradoxes. How about this one. If you can see the future, then you can't change it. For it you changed it, then what you saw was wrong. So you can't be both omnipotent and omniscient. How cool is that?

If you're omniscient, then P=NP. But that makes no sense
 
  • #15


Office_Shredder said:
If you're omniscient, then P=NP.
How so?
 
  • #16


Knowing everything is a polynomial time algorithm to solving the traveling salesman problem
 
  • #17


What about the simple paradox "This sentence is not true"? It apparently has the proper syntax for a genuine proposition, but it cannot be true nor false.
 
  • #18


Office_Shredder said:
Knowing everything is a polynomial time algorithm to solving the traveling salesman problem
Sweet.
 
  • #19


Nothing is impossible, it is impossible to do nothing. ...Wait what?
 
  • #20


A snake eating a snake is a paradox. I've actually seen it happen too.
 
  • #21


leroyjenkens said:
A snake eating a snake is a paradox. I've actually seen it happen too.
Ahem. How is a snake...eating a snake...a paradox. It's called Cannibalism...and, IMHO, Is not Paradoxic at all.
 
  • #22


DR_henegar said:
I think this is a Paradox, but I thought of it and I'm not sure. Can anyone confirm. The paradox is as follows:
If it is said Nothing is Impossible, but you cannot be perfect, does that mean Perfection is Impossible?

That's not a paradox. It's just two contradictory statements. By the same token, if I said leprechauns don't exist but I had lunch with Lucky the other day, it wouldn't be a paradox. One of the statements would simply be untrue. A paradox requires that true statements contradict each other. It's clearly not true that nothing is impossible. Plenty of things are impossible.
 
  • #23


loseyourname said:
That's not a paradox. It's just two contradictory statements. By the same token, if I said leprechauns don't exist but I had lunch with Lucky the other day, it wouldn't be a paradox. One of the statements would simply be untrue. A paradox requires that true statements contradict each other. It's clearly not true that nothing is impossible. Plenty of things are impossible.

Well said.
 
  • #24


DR_henegar said:
Ahem. How is a snake...eating a snake...a paradox. It's called Cannibalism...and, IMHO, Is not Paradoxic at all.

It should be a snake eating itself. It's actually known as Ouroboros.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Coincidently:

imagesvicious20circle.jpg
 
  • #25
  • #26


DaveC426913 said:
Many a dog are very envious...

:smile:
 
  • #27


jarednjames said:
It should be a snake eating itself. It's actually known as Ouroboros.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Coincidently:

imagesvicious20circle.jpg

What I should have said was two snakes eating each other is a paradox. What would happen if they both finished eating at the same time? Nobody knows.

In regards to your picture, do snakes really do that? Or did someone shove his tail in his mouth just for the picture?
 
  • #28


leroyjenkens said:
What I should have said was two snakes eating each other is a paradox. What would happen if they both finished eating at the same time? Nobody knows.

Even if it were so that nobody knows the outcome of that absurd situation, it's still no paradox.
 
  • #29


leroyjenkens said:
What I should have said was two snakes eating each other is a paradox. What would happen if they both finished eating at the same time? Nobody knows.

Two pieces of snake?
In regards to your picture, do snakes really do that? Or did someone shove his tail in his mouth just for the picture?

Not a clue. Googled it.
 

Similar threads

Is the criteria for the present perfect tense in Warriner's textbook inadequate?
Replies
38
Views
4K
Insights When Science is Not Enough: Legal and Health Implications of Questions
Replies
18
Views
2K
Have you ever fallen in love with a celebrity?
Replies
10
Views
3K
Can you name someone that pulled off a certain impossible feat academically?
Replies
32
Views
3K
B The Dean paradox-
Replies
8
Views
1K
I Is Vacuum Decay from a False to True State Impossible or Just Unlikely?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Is Absolute Nothingness the Same as Limitlessness?
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Higher Dimensional Time Implications?
Replies
8
Views
4K
I Photon in a mirrored box moving in direction of travel
Replies
26
Views
2K
Another (old) example of fake news
Replies
4
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top