- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Thomas Aquinas would definitely answer that it is God, since you have practically reproduced one of his five classical proofs, the proof from degrees of perfection from Summa Theologica.
Suppose that “there is always someone who is better than you” is an axiom. Then it does not follow that there is the best of the best, but that everything is better than you.
Let's reformulate: “there is always someone who is better”. This means that the best of the best does not exist, because then it would mean that for him there is no one who is better. And this violates the axiom that there is always someone who is better. In other words, you can always add someone else to the list of the best, and this is nothing more than an infinite sequence. It turns out that the limit of the perfection function is infinity. Or, speaking in ordinary language, there is no limit to perfection.
This means that there is no better of the best. This follows directly from the axiom.
You can also look at it more realistically – for better or worse, these are subjective quality categories. While the concepts of “better” or “worse” are not defined, nothing can be clearly said. You can say that the best person is the one who knows what you don't know, or can do what you can't. But first, you can know or be able to do what the other person does not know, and be better than them, which means you are better than yourself.
Second, “better” can mean ” more efficient.” This, in turn, means that there is always a limit to efficiency due to restrictions on a person's mental and physical activity. And this “best of the best” is none other than a genius – one who can make a revolution in science or art. Because he uses his thinking skills more effectively than any other person on the planet at the moment, but at the same time does not violate the limits of human capabilities.
You know, this absolute ceases to be such if we reason that in the above phrase we are comparing individuals who are talented in a particular field of activity.
And that means there is such a clever character, in a narrow circle recognized as the best.
But somewhere in the world there is someone who is better than him in the same field.
But someone else will be better than the second in another business, in which both are successful…
and so this circle will be closed forever.�
There are people who are talented, even the best, in many ways. But that in everything-no, it does not happen. After all, the range of knowledge about the world around us is too large and diverse for just one head.
The most successful example, in my opinion, is an athlete. We can assume that there are people on the planet who can jump high, but still an athlete who is engaged only in high jumping will do it better than others. And those athletes who won first places in the relevant disciplines at international competitions will be the very “best of the best” in one particular sport and at one particular moment in time.
I understand that you mean people who successfully perform a certain action and / or sequence of actions with a probability of 100%. So, the existence of such people is physically impossible. 100% probability-these are always mutually exclusive conditions. Or an incorrect experiment. In our world, a stick always has two ends, this can be seen from the formulation of the Popper criterion. Yes, you don't even need any clever words, you can see this in your own life experience. For example, when no one understands smart people. For the time being.�
But there are those who are just often in the field of view of a wide audience. And most, thinking that the proportionality between quantity and quality is direct (in fact, it is inverse), conclude that they are the best of the best.