If certain bounds and constraints are considered to be inescapable, then under that assumption perfection too will abide by those constraints. It may be impossible to create a perfectly efficient engine, so our ideal of a real perfect engine won’t be perfectly efficient. It is the difference between defining perfection as “without flaw” or as “best possible”.
While this at first seemed to be a historically-recent, rational sort of re-framing, upon reflection it seems to be an ever-present assumption. Boris Godunov may have been seen as a “most glorious Tsar,” but he didn’t automatically generate limitless food out of the earth, conquer the world with a snap of his fingers, or solve every marital dispute in the country. Nobody expected that even in their ideal, everyone put assumptions of limitation on their idea of perfection. Likewise, even if you could create a perfectly efficient engine, wouldn’t it be even better if it would make also make your favorite food, whenever you wanted, without your even asking? Perhaps reverence and praise has less to do with something being perfect than it does with something being really, really good.
Taken to one extreme, with sufficient limitations each person is the best possible person they could be. It is difficult or even impossible to make the brain really admire that kind of greatness, when it’s spread everywhere with no gradient, and I myself haven’t done it. To move somewhat close to it though may be both helpful and healthy, e.g. to see some measure of glory in a person’s imperfect but significant victories over their personal limitations and weaknesses.
All in all, I don’t think it is impossible to praise as well as ancient non-rationalists used to. It may be impossible to praise in the same way as they did, but I think it’s very possible to praise as well as they did. For one thing, our future contains far better things than theirs did, in entities, institutions, and joys. None of us are angels, but that doesn’t mean we won’t be post-singularity, and that our current, godshatter-limited, halting efforts won’t be enough to get us there. While I’m sure this has been mentioned in some other comment, I think that Eliezer spoke of glory when he spoke of all the trembling hands reaching up out of so much blood. With a proper accounting of how hard life can be, I think that real glory really can be seen all around us.
It may be impossible to create a perfectly efficient engine, so our ideal of a real perfect engine won’t be perfectly efficient.
Our ideal is presumably an efficiency expressed as a number. Any efficiency less than 1 can be reached. Any efficiency less than 1 will have a higher efficiency that is still less than 1, and can be reached. Therefore no efficiency less than 1 can be our ideal.
If certain bounds and constraints are considered to be inescapable, then under that assumption perfection too will abide by those constraints. It may be impossible to create a perfectly efficient engine, so our ideal of a real perfect engine won’t be perfectly efficient. It is the difference between defining perfection as “without flaw” or as “best possible”.
While this at first seemed to be a historically-recent, rational sort of re-framing, upon reflection it seems to be an ever-present assumption. Boris Godunov may have been seen as a “most glorious Tsar,” but he didn’t automatically generate limitless food out of the earth, conquer the world with a snap of his fingers, or solve every marital dispute in the country. Nobody expected that even in their ideal, everyone put assumptions of limitation on their idea of perfection. Likewise, even if you could create a perfectly efficient engine, wouldn’t it be even better if it would make also make your favorite food, whenever you wanted, without your even asking? Perhaps reverence and praise has less to do with something being perfect than it does with something being really, really good.
Taken to one extreme, with sufficient limitations each person is the best possible person they could be. It is difficult or even impossible to make the brain really admire that kind of greatness, when it’s spread everywhere with no gradient, and I myself haven’t done it. To move somewhat close to it though may be both helpful and healthy, e.g. to see some measure of glory in a person’s imperfect but significant victories over their personal limitations and weaknesses.
All in all, I don’t think it is impossible to praise as well as ancient non-rationalists used to. It may be impossible to praise in the same way as they did, but I think it’s very possible to praise as well as they did. For one thing, our future contains far better things than theirs did, in entities, institutions, and joys. None of us are angels, but that doesn’t mean we won’t be post-singularity, and that our current, godshatter-limited, halting efforts won’t be enough to get us there. While I’m sure this has been mentioned in some other comment, I think that Eliezer spoke of glory when he spoke of all the trembling hands reaching up out of so much blood. With a proper accounting of how hard life can be, I think that real glory really can be seen all around us.
Our ideal is presumably an efficiency expressed as a number. Any efficiency less than 1 can be reached. Any efficiency less than 1 will have a higher efficiency that is still less than 1, and can be reached. Therefore no efficiency less than 1 can be our ideal.