h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So from this we must conclude that if the theory of perfection was perfect it would be true and would not actually exist. But as it clearly does exist it is therefor imperfect and hence not true. By this logic it is self evident that there is no such thing as perfection.
I'd check with your fiancee about that fiver.

Do two PhDs make a paradox ?

Hmm... good point... but then the theory would have to be totally perfect to disappear, and perhaps I just used the wrong analogy or got the actual details of the theory wrong somehow?
After all, perfection is notoriously picky!

My fiancee still insists she didn't take the fiver... she told me so as she read her new copy of Cosmo magazine...
Hmm.... Maybe she's imperfect?

Ah well, we live in an imperfect world... which is just as well really?

Vanye (going off to check the cover price of Cosmo mag.)

Re: Jan*...

Aha!

But for any theory to be truly perfect, it has to exist. After all, a theory whcih does not exist is less perfect than another theory, which is identical expect in that one fact (it's existance). So, in order for the theory of perfection to be perfect, it would have to cease to exist, meaning that it was not perfect any more and therefore not true and therefore therefore could not cause itself to vanish, as it's own rules would not apply.

There is the true paradox, as the idea which clearly does exist must have exchanged places with a slightly lesser idea which didn't, so we draw the conclusion that the universe would be left with no option but to suck everything IMperfect into the realm of perfection, taking the theory last, then spitting out all the perfect stuff into the universe we currently occupy.

SO- um, no hang on a minute... um I need to think about it another couple of minutes. Hold on I'll be back.

It's rather simple. Either the theory itself is perfect, meaning that it is true and therefore cannot exist, or the theory is imperfect, meaning that it does exist by its own statement, but may not be entirely correct. If the theory is imperfect, but still partially correct, then what part is true and what is not? Perfect theories are not always true, so this theory of perfection itself could still be true but imperfect. Therefore, it exists, but cannot be perfect.
Funny, I wrote some articles on Paradox, Deja Vu (again), and the Circular Self-Referencing Negation Clause, similar to this discussion itself.

Well this is very fine and dandy, but after all's said and done (and it looks like more's being said than done) there's nothing more perfect than a pint of Deuchar's IPA at the end of a hard day.

For further discussion read 'Goedel, Escher, Bach' by Douglas Hofstadter. Then read it again and try to understand it!

I've been reading that book, though I haven't gotten far in it yet. It does have a lot about self-referencing and paradox itself. That's why I made an entry about the Circular Self-Referencing Negation Clause, which states that the Circular Self-Referencing Negation Clause does not exist.

I think it would still exist. It exists, and hence is perfect, which means that by its own logic, it must cease to exist, which it clearly can't because the second it does it must reappear because it is imperfect. This disproves the theory put forward by the very idea itself, and hence it can only be incorrect. Which makes it imperfect. Which means it can exist without danger of suddenly vanishing for a particularly silly reason, which it wouldn't do anyway since the theory isn't true. So, like so many things in life, it actually causes no major threat to the fabric of reality on account of being entirely wrong.

I've built an improbability drive, and all I need to fuel it are the chemicals found only in a five pound note.
I live in New York, USA.
What's the exchange rate? Think I could convert the drive for a Cosmo magazine?

I think it's very unlikely that you've built an improbability drive.

No, it's not highly unlikely, just very improbable! That is, owning or building an improbability drive is itself improbable.
Therefore the fact that you build it means that there must be a high amount of improbability involved to begin with. If you do not have this drive before you build it, then the improbability factors have to work backwards in time to affect the actual construction of itself. Now THAT's improbable!!

Oh, and could it run on a moldy piece of cheese instead? That must be more efficient...

or a small piece of fairy cake?
But considering improbability, consider this - Jeffrey Archer sells more novels than Douglas Adams.

Yes, but Archer sells them so badly! And look at the people who read them.
Incidentally, what is the difference between "Highly unlikely" and "Very improbable", or have I missed some linguistic nicety here?

Not much difference there, just took the opportunity to spout off about improbability...

I suspect the difference is the same as that between half empty and half full - more a state of mind than a difference.

Look, we do not require to figure out a paradox. As if you lot do, then you would go on to something else to think about, maybe even the meaning of life, and then we'll all be replaced!!!

Maybe we already have been?

Replaced? By who?
I am not aware of anyone or anything that has replaced me and is performing my functions...
Then again, I wouldn't be programmed to do so...
Er....Abort, Retry, Fail....