SK7000 said:
First of all, if we are going to talk about "aiming for perfection," we never defined even what accounts for perfection. I didn't define it neither because I just gave it out as an example of why aiming for a goal that cannot be achieved might still be worth it.
I never intended to have it defined either. I wanted to use it as a reference point to try to use modelling as an analogy. This way I could try to use number crunching to explain some fairly abstract points. Keep in mind that purely abstract math is still functional. Having a bunch of known variables is messy but you can still map relations. I tried to make an understanding of how we can map "self-improvement" compared to other people.

SK7000 said:
For our context, I think the best definition for "perfection" is quite simple: "to not mess up. To not make mistakes."
This is why I prefer numbers and variables as "x"
It's just as abstract was what you just said. You have equally little measurement tools as me using a variable. I think we just do the same anyway. Maybe I can help turn our conversation into a more visual representation first so we can all work from that line of though. A little bit like a brainstorm but more elegant than words.... (see next quote)

SK7000 said:
I think your whole argument sort of loses strength because you treat my scenario as if it should be objectively measured. And that it's quite pointless exactly because it cannot be done so.
Web Concept