Imperfect existence vs. perfect existence

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Relevant axioms:

p) Anything that is hypothetically possible may or may not be existent; for it to be possible at all, existence must be able to accommodate it (Examples: unicorns, humans, trees, planet earth, atlantis, demons)

q) Anything that is hypothetically impossible, is non-existent; therefore existence can’t accommodate it (Examples: something that exists and doesn’t exist at the same time, a square-circle)

Part 1: The only possible definition of perfection

In similar fashion to how the semantics of “longest possible” and “infinite” are different, the semantics of “best possible” and “perfect” are also different. Whilst defining the best possible x within imperfect boundaries is possible, it is contradictory to define the perfect x within imperfection. With this in mind:

The only possible definition of perfection = something that is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and infinite (infinite regarding the dimensions of, height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.)

Part 2: Imperfect existence vs. Perfect existence:

The definition of perfection requires omnipresence. Existence and omnipresence denote the same thing. Only a perfect existence can accommodate perfection and for something to be meaningful, coherent and possible, existence must be able to accommodate it. Consider the following:

Existence = omnipresent thing which all things are a part of (anything that exists, is a part of existence)
Perfection = omnipresent, infinite, omnipotent and omniscient thing.
Perfect existence = omnipresent thing that is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient.
Imperfect existence = omnipresent thing that is not infinite, omnipotent and omniscient.
Imperfection = All things that can be bettered or more complete. Anything that is not perfection.

Conclusion: If existence was imperfect, then perfection would be an absurdity. Either existence is perfect, or perfection is impossible therefore logically absurd.

(edited: removed “Perfection denotes existence” from the “Conclusion”)

2

How do you know what is possible and impossible?

Why can’t you have a perfect apple or rock or blade of grass?

What does an imperfect apple lack?

A rock is the embodiment of rockness.

Could grass be grassier?

3

If something is maximally triangular, does that make it perfect? Is the best possible triangle, perfect?
In a finite room, is the longest possible thing infinite?

I don’t think you can define or reach infinity within finite boundaries just as you cannot define or reach perfection within imperfect boundaries. If something can be bettered, then it is not perfect.

Can all of the following be perfect:

  1. Best possible apple 2) Human 3) Existence 4) Reality 5) Maximally triangular thing 6) Omnipresent, infinite, omnipotent and omniscient thing

I think 1, 2, and 5 are imperfect by default because all of them necessarily include finiteness in their definition and finiteness is an imperfection. Only 3 and 4 can be perfect and only 6 can’t be rationally bettered in any way.

No matter how good an apple is, by definition it cannot be infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. If it does not possess these 4 traits, then it can be bettered.

The only thing that can be perfect or perfectly exist, is existence. Perfection, existence and reality denote the same thing.

4

Perfect == exactly matching a chosen ideal.

Choose any real thing as your ideal and that thing will be perfect.
Choose any category of the existent, and everything within perfectly matches that category.

But when speaking of perfect geometry, none can be perfect, even within its own definition. For two concepts to perfectly match, absolute zero difference is implied. But absolute zero of any qualia measure is logically impossible. Thus even to imply the concept of a perfect circle or a straight line is illogical. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t practical or rational.

5

My ideal shirt consists of xyz. 2 shirts meet this ideal. Are these shirts perfect or ideal or both? I would argue ideal because there is no contradiction in an imperfect thing being ideal for some person, purpose or thing. But there is a contradiction in something imperfect being perfect. I think this suggests that semantically the two concepts of ideal and perfect are semantically different.

You say “perfectly matching something”. is this any different to saying “maximally matching something?” I don’t think maximally matching something is an instance of perfection.

Going back to the shirt example, you may argue that a shirt that maximally matches the xyz ideal, is perfect as a shirt. Isn’t that like saying its perfect as an imperfection?

If I understand your point correctly the following may apply: If I say a straight line is a line that has 0 bend, would we not have the same understanding of the concept? Not the imagining of it, just the understanding of it. Whatever the qualia in which the understanding takes place, is the understanding not the same?

6

“Perfection”, as you describe it, is part of an unreal absolutism. There’s no reason to discuss it.

7

My point was that “perfection” is a type of measurement between two things. It, like time, is not an entity or independent quality. It is merely the degree of matching, “absolute match”. And there has to be something with which to match else there can be no perfection. Time is similar. It is a measure between a standard change, such as the rotation of a clock, and another change, such as the pace of a walk. Time is not a “thing”. And neither is perfection and for the same reason.

My point concerning a straight line is simply that, believe it or not, the very concept of a straight line is illogical. It cannot exist physically and can only be a concept on a crude scale, a cartoon. Absolute perfect straightness, absolute zero deviation from straightness, is a fantasy concept. And I am not speaking merely of practicality.

Your mind works totally on fantasy concepts and nothing else at all. Your mind cannot even imagine anything that isn’t a fantasy. Even geometric shapes cannot exist in any universe. Your mind can imagine a vast totally dark expanse that you call “nothingness”, but such a nothingness not only doesn’t physically exist, but isn’t even a logical construct. You can imagine a box that only has 2 dimensions. But if it only has two dimensions, it isn’t a box. The same is true of a straight line. If it is a line, then it isn’t perfectly straight. “Perfectly straight” is an oxymoron.

I realize that such isn’t what you were taught in school, but it is quite provable.

8

Like existence and reality, it is an absolute; but why have you concluded that it is unreal?

It might be worth noting that the ontological argument of Existence being a necessary trait of perfection was problematic because existence doesn’t make something better or worse (Kant) therefore it isn’t necessary to perfection. But no one seems to have explored the possibility that perfection and existence may be the same thing as nothing else can be perfect if in fact perfection is as I have defined it.

9

I don’t think your conclusion follows.

You defined existence merely on the basis of omnipresence (of which all things are a part), but you defined perfection as more than that–on top of omnipresence, you added infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient (God knows why).

So while perfection does denote existence according to your definitions (in the sense that it subsumes existence), it does not work the other way around: existence does not denote perfection. You would need to define existence as subsuming all those characteristics you attributed to perfection, if not more. But even so, I don’t see why existence not being perfect implies perfection is impossible. Couldn’t you have a perfect being (omnipresent, infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient) that permeated all of existence, like an ether, but was not one with it?

10

James, since our definitions of perfection are different, let’s take the common definition as a starting point and go from there:
Oxford on perfect: having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

Your definition places an additional limit. It semantically limits the measure of perfection to the context of matching. What warrants this move?

I agree that perfection, finite, infinite, imperfection and time are all measures, but something accounts for all these measures. Change accounts for time. What I’m suggesting is that the only thing that could be perfect (possess the measure of perfection) is existence. Since this measure is possible of existence, existence must be perfect.

I think your point is only applicable to this physical Universe. What about the rest of existence? In this Universe, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. What about another universe where the physical space is not of the same standard as this universe? Is that metaphysically impossible?

I don’t think of the totally dark expanse as nothingness because I need space without light for darkness. Nothingness won’t give me darkness. It will always give me nothing.

11

I’ve tried to define perfection without imperfect boundaries. My conclusion was that objectively, nothing is or can be better than an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient entity. But for something to be omnipotent or omniscient, it logically needs to have reach or access to all things. The only way that something can have reach or access to all things is if it were omnipresent (existence). Omnipresence/existence is necessary to perfection not because it makes something better or worse (as suggested by Descartes, St. Anselm and others) but because omnipotence and omniscience are logically impossible without omnipresence.

There can only be one existence. If that existence is perfect, then an imperfect existence is impossible (it has to be one or the other). If that existence is imperfect (the omnipresent thing can be bettered) then how can perfection be possible in such an entirely imperfect existence when you can’t add or takeaway anything from it?

If existence is all that there is, where else will perfection be/exist? How can it permeate all of existence like an ether without being one with it?

You might be thinking that if existence is perfect, how can it include imperfection (like us).
If this is the case, consider how 3 dimensionality includes 2 dimensionality without there being any contradiction. Or how a lego pyramid structure may include rectangular lego pieces. So long as the totality of the lego pieces possess the traits semantically associated with pyramids, then we have a pyramid regardless of the rectangular lego pieces that are a part of it. Similarly, so long as we have something infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, then we have perfection regardless of it including imperfect things.

12

“Good” is relative.
“Good” for whom/what?
Abstractly, there are universal goods, but all good is relative to a subject, “subjective” (not to be confused with “arbitrary”).

When you say that the universe is perfect, you are inherently comparing it to an ideal of “lacking nothing”, perhaps fully logical, perhaps perfectly fitting an order, perhaps being totally pure. To say that something is absolutely perfect is to say that it exactly matches some conceived ideal. And that can only be true if the ideal is the very same thing that it is being compared to.

The universe as a whole is only perfect because the universe itself sets the ideal to which you compare it. “Perfectly good” implies that an ideal good has been conceived. And for it to be absolutely perfect, it must be exactly what was conceived. If perfection is conceived as “what is”, then “what is”, is absolutely perfect. If perfection is conceived as anything other than what is, then what is, is not absolutely perfect.

No two things; concepts or physical entities, can absolutely match unless they are really one and the same thing. That is true because both absolute infinity and absolute zero are oxymorons.

Yes, it is metaphysically (logically) impossible. Nothing is possible until something is impossible. “This universe” is only the way it is because everything else is impossible. And that includes even the idea of a straight line except in a crude way, (macro scale). Perfect straightness is an oxymoron, illogical no matter what universe one proposes (ref: Mathematics: Quantity vs Quality.

13

Right there you’ve got a problem: you’re going to need to convince tons of people why omnipotence, omniscience, and infinity are perfect characteristics (and the only characteristics of perfection… unless you want to list out an infinitely long list).

I’ll give you this.

It needn’t be. Existence may be imperfect.

In the same way a ghost might be said to permeate a whole body without being one with it (i.e. without being the same entity).

You’ve explained the Fallacy of Composition perfectly. Imperfection in the parts does not entail imperfection in the whole. Now stop making it yourself. Perfection in the parts does not entail perfection in the whole.

14

“Infinitely long” “maximally long” “perfectly good” “maximally good”.
“Long”, is also relative. But if we had a discussion on what the longest thing could be, would we not conclude infinity? Regarding good; could we rationally get anything better than perfection (not confined to imperfect boundaries or an imperfect context)?

Something can be maximally long within finite boundaries. Something cannot be infinitely long within finite boundaries. Something can be maximally good within finite boundaries. Something cannot be perfectly good within imperfect boundaries.

You can define an ideal within imperfect boundaries, but can you define perfection within imperfection?

I do believe that existence determines the ideals, limits, maximums, possibilities and impossibilities; and because we are only a part of this whole, its limits also apply to us. This is why I think it’s interesting that the best possible thing we (parts of existence) can conceive of coherently, are 4 traits that are exclusive about the nature of existence as a whole (i.e., it is self-aware/omniscient)

If a part of existence can understand this (perfect existence), then existence can understand this. But how can existence understand this, if it is not within the potentiality of existence to ever accommodate this (perfect existence)? Anything that is “in nothingness” or non-existent (not within the potentiality of existence), we can never understand. So why do we understand perfection?

The only thing existence lacks, is nothingness. It has the potentiality for all things possible. Whether this potentiality occurs in the past, future, present, planet earth or any other aspect of existence doesn’t matter. What matters is that it must have the potential for it. It must be able to accommodate it. How else would it be understandable by a part of it?

15

I agree but this is not what I’m arguing. I am arguing that perfection is exclusive to the whole of existence.Could you give an example of a part of existence that is perfect? I don’t think its possible.

Didn’t intend to. I was thinking more about Plato’ statue.

Ok what’s better than an entity with the 4 traits of infiniteness, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience? What’s missing such that it is not inclusive within those traits?

I think my last reply to James is relevant here:

[i]I do believe that existence determines the ideals, limits, maximums, possibilities and impossibilities; and because we are only a part of this whole, its limits also apply to us. This is why I think it’s interesting that the best possible thing we (parts of existence) can conceive of coherently, are 4 traits that are exclusive about the nature of existence as a whole (i.e., it is self-aware/omniscient)

If a part of existence can understand this (perfect existence), then existence can understand this. But how can existence understand this, if it is not within the potentiality of existence to ever accommodate this (perfect existence)?..The only thing existence lacks, is nothingness. It has the potentiality for all things possible. Whether this potentiality occurs in the past, future, present, planet earth or any other aspect of existence doesn’t matter. What matters is that it must have the potential for it. It must be able to accommodate it. How else would it be understandable by a part of it?[/i]

16

Yeah, me… ok, just kidding, but perfection is subjective and relative. It’s subjective in the sense that someone might think such-and-such a painting is perfect whereas someone else might think it’s deplorable. It’s relative in the sense that you must always specify what something is perfect at doing or at being. Fire is perfect for burning paper but it’s terrible for getting paper wet (and if you want to say that something else could burn paper faster or more efficiently, then I say fire is perfect at being fire).

An entity that likes cheese pizza. I love extra cheese on my pizza. I think an entity that had the same tastes as me in cheesy pizza would be better than an entity that didn’t.

I doubt you’ll take that seriously, however, but it does go to show how arbitrary some of these attributes are.

Here’s one you might take more seriously: omnibenevolence.

Or how about a being who is all colors at once? Surely that being is superior to a being that is only red or only blue.

Fallacy of Composition… but I’ll go with it.

Why would this understanding entail said potentiality? I understand what it would be for me to be an astronaut–doesn’t mean it’s ever going to happen.

17

How can that be possible when I’m perf…oh, your kidding.

“good”, is relative in similar fashion to how “long” is relative.
“Infinitely long” “maximally long” “perfectly good” “maximally good”.

if we had a discussion on what the longest thing could be, would we not conclude infinity? Of course if we decided on a finite context like a 10 meter room, then the longest possible thing would never be more than 10 meters and infinity would be impossible. Regarding good: If the context was imperfect, then perfection would be impossible. Something can be maximally good within imperfect boundaries but something cannot be perfectly good within imperfect boundaries. Something can be maximally long within finite boundaries but something cannot be infinitely long within finite boundaries.

With regards to doing: Something cannot do infinitely unless it is infinite. Something cannot do perfectly unless it is perfect. The only thing that can do perfectly is existence and the only thing it can do perfectly, is exist.

Existence is perfect is like saying it perfectly exists as a result of its being perfect. Nothing else can do perfectly. A runner can run in the best possible way. A runner can be maximally good at running. But all that the runner does and all that the runner is, is within imperfect boundaries.

Any concept that is rationally incoherent, is rationally irrelevant because it is not of existence. That which can do all things or know all things, cannot do or know the absurd because such things are not in existence. Therefore they are not part of what qualifies to be almighty or omniscient or perfect. That which knows all things cannot know what a “100th spatial dimension” is if such a thing is non-existent. So if being all colors at once is logically impossible, then it’s irrelevant to perfection. Same with omnibenevolence but that is more controversial. I’l come back to it at the end.

I think it paradoxical for existence to not be infinite. With existence being infinite, all hypothetically possible things will come to pass or will already have been passed. All coherent hypothetical possibilities are within the potential of existence and that potential is infinite and so an infinite amount of hypothetical possibilities.

Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “unlimited or infinite benevolence”
If everything is dependent on existence, and if existence has always existed and will always exist and things will always be dependent on it, is that not unlimited benevolence? Or does that not include maximal benevolence?

18

That doesn’t address my point. You’ve just swap “perfection” with “infinite goodness”. But still, what’s good for one person may be horrible for another.

I don’t even know what “do infinitely” and “do perfectly” mean. I decide to kill off all the bacteria in a room. I spray it with a gas. The gas works perfectly. It kills each and every germ in the room. I don’t know how the room can be any more germ-free. Thus, it did it’s job perfectly. Does that mean the gas is infinite? And since ultimately I did it, does that mean I’m perfect?

The logic would work the other way around: if it’s perfect at existing, it would be on account of existing that it’s perfect.

Couldn’t we say the runner is perfect at running 10 km? Or perhaps 10 km/hr? Or perhaps running North? Or perhaps running on the surface of the Earth?

Being all colors at once is not logically impossible or absurd. Rainbows are all colors at once.

They say that the universe is not infinite in terms of its size–it’s really, really big, and growing–but not infinite. And we know that it had a beginning in time and some speculate it might have an end.

But supposing the universe was eternal in the future direction. We only have a finite amount of time before we succumb to the entropic heat death, as scientists are predicting, and then although an infinitude of things will still happen after that point, not ever hypothetical possibility will happen. Life, for example, will forever be impossible after that point.

Think of it as counting all the odd numbers. Given an eternity and a relentless drive to continue, you would certainly, at some point, count any given odd number. But you will never count the even numbers. Likewise, given an eternity and an ever-changing universe, an infinitude of unique events may come to pass, but that doesn’t mean any event you can imagine will come to pass. In regards to the heat death, we’ll have elementary particles streaming off into deep space, each getting further and further away from every other, like a runaway train that no one can turn back, and therein lies your infinite series of events–event 1: particles at average distance n from each other, event 2: particles at average distance n+1 from each other, event 3: particles at average distance n+2 from each other…

Mmmm… not really. I don’t see why dependence is a necessary prerequisite for omnibenevolence. I would think at the very least you’d need consciousness in a thing in order to call it benevolent.

19

Ok this is probably the most important point that would probably address some of your other points so I’l put full focus on this point so that we can hopefully understand each other’s argument.

I’m not abandoning the rest of your points, just focusing on them one by one:

You say that the gas works perfectly because it can’t do its job (kill germs) any better. So this is equivalent to the gas is maximally good at doing what its supposed to do (kill germs); right?

20

“Supposed to do” is subjective.