Most people say that nothing, or nobody, is perfect. They say that perfection is impossible. This is wrong. Look at perfection mathematically. Two apples plus two apples equals four apples. Unless your name is Winston, that's a flawless equation. That's a perfect equation. So, mathematically, perfect equations and numbers are attainable, even if you're trying to figure out all the digits in pi, which I'll get to later. If perfection is attainable mathematically, why not organically? To be perfect, a person or animal must be flawless. Invicible. Like 2+2=4. Nothing can touch 2+2=4. 2+2=4 is an invincible equation that will never change for as long as the universe exists. So, to be a perfect person or animal, you need to be invincible. Nothing should be able to harm or weaken you. So, as far as I know, no one today is perfect, but perfection is by no means impossible. Just improbable, for the moment.

Okay, another thing. Zero is the opposite to infinity. Forget negative numbers for the moment. We can get zero by removing everything. Take two apples away from two apples and get zero apples. But somehow we can't get infinity. I think that if infinity is impossible, zero should be as well. Pi is supposedly infinite, and yet, people continue to delve deeper beyond that decimal point. Why do they do this if the numbers will never end? Because zero is very possible, so is infinity, whatever it is.

As scattered as that was, I think I made my point...

Well the problem with perfection..from a biological AND philosophical standpoint is that it doesn't allow for adaptability. The whole notion of 'perfect' is dependant on the surroundings, since an organism...unlike a number, is a manifestation, or a part of the environment. Like organs which are only meant to have only a few functions, its a part of the 'circle of life' (damn cliches).

When you step back you see the oness of it all. The earth as one organism is perfect. I guess perfection can be attained, but it means that you have to be completely independant of your environment. A function of yourself.. its not 'impossible' as you say, but damn difficult.

"Well the problem with perfection..from a biological AND philosophical standpoint is that it doesn't allow for adaptability."

True. But if you're perfect, you won't ever ever ever need to adapt.

"The whole notion of 'perfect' is dependant on the surroundings, since an organism...unlike a number, is a manifestation, or a part of the environment."

Numbers are manifestations of the environment as well. Numbers can't exist without something to count.

"'circle of life'" Or, circle of stuff. This is CNN.

"The earth as one organism is perfect."

No it isn't, because it is at the mercy of the universe. The universe is at the mercy of whatever is perfect, not the other way around. The Earth as one organism can easily be destroyed, it exists only as it does because of probability--something so perfectly suited for life had to come along sooner or later.

"I guess perfection can be attained, but it means that you have to be completely independant of your environment."

Yep.

Most people say that nothing, or nobody, is perfect. They say that perfection is impossible. This is wrong. Look at perfection mathematically. Two apples plus two apples equals four apples. Unless your name is Winston, that's a flawless equation. That's a perfect equation. So, mathematically, perfect equations and numbers are attainable, even if you're trying to figure out all the digits in pi, which I'll get to later. If perfection is attainable mathematically, why not organically? To be perfect, a person or animal must be flawless. Invicible. Like 2+2=4. Nothing can touch 2+2=4. 2+2=4 is an invincible equation that will never change for as long as the universe exists. So, to be a perfect person or animal, you need to be invincible. Nothing should be able to harm or weaken you. So, as far as I know, no one today is perfect, but perfection is by no means impossible. Just improbable, for the moment.

Okay, another thing. Zero is the opposite to infinity. Forget negative numbers for the moment. We can get zero by removing everything. Take two apples away from two apples and get zero apples. But somehow we can't get infinity. I think that if infinity is impossible, zero should be as well. Pi is supposedly infinite, and yet, people continue to delve deeper beyond that decimal point. Why do they do this if the numbers will never end? Because zero is very possible, so is infinity, whatever it is.

As scattered as that was, I think I made my point...First of all, math isn't reality. Math is not what reality is based on.

There aren't two apples because 1+1=2. There are two apples because it happens to be two apples there.

In reality there are no boundaries, so to say that there are two apples (assuming in a certain place) is wrong (cause there are no certain place), there are as many apples as there are possible forms of apples, without it turning into something else.

So if we say that there are 1000 possible forms of apples, 900 may be recognized as a apple while the next hundred is slowly forming into something else. Which means that the boundary between apples and something else will be a fade (or a morph) where they both will become infinite (you will not be able to count the number of apples, since you don't know where the apples begins and something else takes over).

Math can say that there are two apples at the table in front of you. But reality have no condition, "table in front of you", so to say that there are only two apples, is wrong in realities view - since it has no condition. Thus math is not reality, is just a description of what's in front of us (and requires a "room"), and is unable to see it in a wider perspective (it can only calculate what is in a certain place). You can't mathematically count the possible number of forms of apples, cause it will be infinite like Pi, and is because of the fade between apples and something else (both the fade at the beginning -where something starts to turn into a apple - and the fade at the end - where the apple starts to turn into something else), what further complicates it, is that the "image" of something else is allways inside the apple, it is allways on a transformation, there may be a "middle" where the apple is ONLY a apple, and is thus the PERFECT form of apple. In that case, then there are in reality only ONE apple, the rest are imperfect ideas of that apple. Also there may be a certain (or infinite) number of forms of each one of the apples that exist. In the case that each apple is unique, and not the idea of the apple. In that case then it would be a perfect form for each unique apple, which I would guess only the apple itself would know, the rest of the imperfect forms would be inside our head, thus we can recognize the world without "taking it with us" - cause each thing that we recognize is only the perfect form at that place and time that the thing exist in, while every image or imagination of that thing is another imperfect form of it.

This would suggest that there are a infinite number of forms of each unique apple and that only one apple is the PERFECT form and that is the apple in itself. Also why that particular apple is allowed to exist outside of it's idea (as a manifestation in the physical reality).

Another thing that interests me, is that human ideas can exist without humans.

Consider that we discover a idea and that idea is true in itself, it would have been true allthough there were no humans around. We only discover ideas, we don't make them.

One idea that is true in itself:

Justice, I don't mean this in the legal way, but justice between humans.

If there are three people and I should give something to each one, then I give to each the same value. I'm being fair - which is the same as being just.

If no one was treated with justice, then it would still be justice since everybody would be treated with the same unfairness.

So justice would exist even though no one use it.

Thus justice supports itself, it gives life to it's own idea.

What matters is that even though no one use justice, the idea would still exist, it would still be used by not using it.

So there are good justice where everybody use justice and there are bad justice where no one use justice. This can be likened to a pillar, the top and the bottom supports itself, nothing can destroy it. It would have existed since the beginning of time. It is these kind of ideas that will allways live on, if there are aliens out there, then it will eventually be discovered by them too. Thus in some way, if they have some kind of intelligence, then they will use justice, the idea of doing good things is natural and exist everywhere.

So from justice comes the idea of doing good things, you may say that from justice also comes the idea of doing bad things, but when doing bad things cause bad consequences (why it cause bad consequences? Because that's why the action is bad in the first place - if it caused good consequences it would be a good action), every being will eventually strive to do good things - if each one isn't blindly following everyone else. Which seems to be the way our society is going.

Cyperium... how do you know that ideas remain even if there are no minds to hold them?


You don't and can't know that.

By the way, you have a some serious subject-noun disagreement going on.


Pollux

Math is a communicative interpretation of reality.

It subdivides all the bulk and force of the universe into convenient, indivisible units, and relates these units to one another in a way that conveys their natural movements.

Math is, for humanity, the language of the physical world.

If you think math is perfect, then it follows that reality, as a whole, is perfect.



But, I must ask, why would you call math "perfect" to begin with?

The "perfection" of mathematics is merely the discipline of consistent logic. Mathematics is a cognitive tool characterised by very fine attention to logic.

The brain can achieve such discipline because it is itself a product of a world in which various kinds of cognitive precision can potentially emerge through evolution. But even for the modern human brain, mathematics takes a good deal of mental effort. Most of the time, people's cognitive processes are much sloppier & more subjective.

Cyperium... how do you know that ideas remain even if there are no minds to hold them?


You don't and can't know that.

By the way, you have a some serious subject-noun disagreement going on.I know because the truth is allways the truth, though for the idea to exist without humans, the idea must be true too.

In a way, if ideas can only reflect on something that is allready there, then there should have been a idea for everything new that happened...

Without the universe, no idea of the universe...as soon as something happened, all ideas that could be true concerning that thing would be created (and all ideas relating that thing to all other things that exist).

An idea is something that reflects upon something and puts that into meaningful and (hopefully, and in this case) true relations.

The ideas need not be expressed in thought for them to exist. The idea can come to you simply by feeling it coming, and without "thinking it" you allready know everything about it, we think about ideas using thought to be able to express them to someone else (or possibly to develop them).

I don't know what you mean with "subject-noun disagreement", explain it to me.

How do you know that your ideas would exist without you?

Have you ever not existed? :rolleyes:


No... you haven't. That's a given.


Therefore, you have no idea whether or not your ideas are permanent. :p

There is no possible way you can ever know whether or not they are.




Subject-verb is what I meant to write.
Sorry 'bout that.

Just because 2+2=4 does not make it in any way perfect. If we follow the analogy of 2+2=4 apples and you have 15 starving people, you are at less than perfection to solve this particular equation. 2+2=4 doesn't help you there.

Zero vs Infinity? Both exist all around us, but not necessarily in the things you might desire.

I am not sure quite what you consider "perfect" in a human. Flawless and invincible you say. Infinitly? Then no, nothing based in organic chemistry can be infinitly invincible. With sufficient (currently imaginary) technology you could continally remove "flaws" but who is the judge of what constitues a flaw? Who judges what is the correction of that flaw?

Cool question, btw. :D

How do you know that your ideas would exist without you?

Have you ever not existed? :rolleyes:


No... you haven't. That's a given.


Therefore, you have no idea whether or not your ideas are permanent. :p

There is no possible way you can ever know whether or not they are.




Subject-verb is what I meant to write.
Sorry 'bout that.Hi again.

I see your point :), though I have a feeling that there is more to add to this story.

We can say that there is an idea that circles are round. The idea that circles are round are human and depends on what you mean with a circle in the first place.

Circles are round, that in itself explain both "circle" and "round", we can also say that round are circle, it doesn't really matter though the circle should be the object described not the description (though logically it doesn't matter, you could logically explain the description using the object - round is like a circle).

Circles have no meaning if we don't have round, round have no meaning unless we have circles.

Is it the circle that made "round" or is it the "round" that made the circle?

Did the description make the object?

That would be the idea, making something that represents the idea.

-now we are deeper than you may think-

Let's say you are God, you are at the beginning of time, nothing exist except you. Let's say that you have an idea of "round". For round to have any meaning, you'd have to make something that is round.

God would know the truth, that it really is just an idea, it seems real and like it has allways been there, but it was an idea at the beginning, and if the idea wasn't realized then it would have no meaning, and it would seem like it had never existed.

Something tells me that ideas are forever, you can't take away "round", you can take away every circle that exist but you can't take away the idea of "round". Though the idea itself have no meaning unless there is something that represents the idea. Then it's just a thought. Everything is possible, but not everything that is possible represents something in reality. The idea could be made possible, but it has to go along with all the other ideas.

If we have an idea, then in order to change that idea, we have to change all the ideas that are in relation to that idea.

This is what I mean, we have a box, and in that box are every idea that has any relation to the other ideas within that box. If we change one idea in the box, then every idea that has any relation to that idea has to change too. Since they have to support eachother.

If one idea is in the wrong box, then that idea will be rejected from that box, since every other idea cannot change according to that idea.

I believe that this is how the brain orders things.

Ok, so in the larger sense, in reality. For an idea to be allowed existance (become a object, instead of description), then it has to be able to adapt in such a way that it fits with the other ideas.

I can't know that this is true, but the possibility exist that it is true, therefor it is true if it fits with the other possibilities that are true.

Reality is truth, the "box" of truth.

This in itself is just an idea.