# Does that mean Perfection is Impossible?

## Main Question or Discussion Point

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?

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
DaveC426913
Gold Member

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"

DaveC426913
Gold Member

And Perfection is defined as this in my perspective: "A status that is higher than anyone else, but unreachable."

A "perfect" score in golf is 54. It's the best ever achieved (regardless of the fact that, in theory, it is possible to acheive an 18).

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

A "perfect" score in golf is 54. It's the best ever achieved (regardless of the fact that, in theory, it is possible to acheive an 18).

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.

Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member

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

DaveC426913
Gold Member

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

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.

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).

DaveC426913
Gold Member

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")).

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?

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?

Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member

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

If you're omniscient, then P=NP.
How so?

Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member

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

disregardthat

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.

Knowing everything is a polynomial time algorithm to solving the traveling salesman problem
Sweet.

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

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

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.

loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member

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.

DaveC426913
Gold Member

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.

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:

DaveC426913
Gold Member