Re: OT: but Mr. Architect, why can't you make a perfect world?
 

Ofcourse, in a place of infinite resources, there would exist neither sheep nor wolves, only grass. There'd be no impetus for life to evolve into predatory forms, even herbivorous ones.

Re: OT: but Mr. Architect, why can't you make a perfect world?
 

One could expect some kind of infinite pandemia to clean up all this bloody mess. Then Grass would rule. For. EVER !

Re: OT: but Mr. Architect, why can't you make a perfect world?
 

Until the great grass plague.

Re: OT: but Mr. Architect, why can't you make a perfect world?
 

Then...plague shall inherit the Earth?

Re: OT: but Mr. Architect, why can't you make a perfect world?
 

Unless someone wants to define what they mean by 'a perfect world', the proposition automatically fails because its undefined. 'perfect' is basically contentless. So the claim 'the world isn't perfect' only really contains the information 'I don't like the world'.

Re: OT: but Mr. Architect, why can't you make a perfect world?
 

the world is perfect when everything is in perfect order

http://higherbalance.files.wordpress...pg?w=300&h=300

Re: OT: but Mr. Architect, why can't you make a perfect world?
 

to quote whitman..

"and the grass covers all"...

Re: OT: but Mr. Architect, why can't you make a perfect world?
 

@Squirrelloid

I disagree about that. I like people and things that are not perfect.
The good parts/traits/days are worth the bad ones => I like it.
Perfect => bad parts don't exists and there are no parts missing.
This should be definition enough.


edit: Haha, Omniziron you have a very different definition of perfect (which is circular by the way ... but your pic is too so maybe that's intended?)
But I have to add No part is in the wrong place (time, relation, whatever).

Re: OT: but Mr. Architect, why can't you make a perfect world?
 

Warning! Logic Fail!

claim '!Perfect' =/=> !Like

My claim was:
Only !Like => claim '!Perfect'

I did state them in the opposite order, but that's clearly my intended causality. But we start out knowing the consequent (that someone has claimed the world isn't perfect) and are trying to derive meaning from that statement (ie, by trying to figure out why it was claimed in the first place). Someone who likes the world isn't going to claim its not perfect, regardless of their beliefs on perfection.

So if you *like* it because its not perfect, you're wholly not covered by my reasoning.

---------
This is not an acceptable definition.

What do you mean by 'there are no parts missing'? What parts could be/are missing from reality?

What do you mean by 'bad parts don't exist'? Bad to whom and for what?

I mean, there are clearly no 'parts missing', because reality is reality. Its exactly what it is. (Law of identity) What could we possibly mean by 'parts missing'? But not only do you ask for 'no parts missing', you also ask for 'bad parts to not exist'. =><=!!! If some parts don't exist, then they'd be missing, wouldn't they? (whatever that means...)

Would you like to try again, and define perfection in a way that doesn't use value judgements or contradicts itself?

--------

Omniziron:
Is your claim then that reality is not perfect because it contains sets which are not well-orderable?

You realize one cannot have a perfect circle in a world which contained nothing but orderable sets... =)

Re: OT: but Mr. Architect, why can't you make a perfect world?
 

Only !Like => claim '!Perfect'
I.e. I will only claim something isn't perfect if I don't like it?

This assumption then is generally wrong. And I did challenge that with my statement (even if it does indeed serve also against a counterexample against the first one). Since by saying "I like people and things that are not perfect" I also claim they are not perfect.
That isn't saying that I like them because they are not perfect but despite their flaws which I am aware of (or which I believe them to have).

I thought that this would arise. By no parts are missing I mean of course no good parts are missing. No one misses bad parts (or maybe we do?).

Concerning the world, I'd first shortcut it. I personally don't know if there is such a thing as the "world" or what reality is. But I know that I (whatever I is) am experiencing. Let's call the sum of my experiences my life and let's for simplicities sake just assume that there are other people who are also having a life of their own without proof (and let's say that is these lives happen in the world).
Now some of these experiences are good (pleasant, joyful, meaningful, whatever) some are bad (...).
So in a perfect world everyone would have all the good experiences that could be had and not a single bad one. I'm not saying that this would be consistent. But I'm saying that this is a far better description of a perfect life/world than anything that doesn't use value judgements - because that sort of misses the point.