> Well, that's what we're saying. The distinction lies in ideal/perfect, vs imperfect. No, that's not. "Exist in nature" doesn't mean "perfect". Totally diffe

> Well, that's what we're saying. The distinction lies in ideal/perfect, vs imperfect. No, that's not. "Exist in nature" doesn't mean "perfect". Totally different concepts. > Norton's dome requires an infinitesimal point of sorts for the math to work out. Does that exist in reality? Idk, but it certainly seems dubious. A cone requires a point at the pointy end. Does that exist in reality? I've certainly seen a lot of objects we call "cones". And they were pointy. The point is, if you say Norton's dome doesn't exist then you mean cubes don't exist. And we all agree cubes do exist. A perfect Norton's dome doesn't exist, just like a perfect cube doesn't exist. But a regular Norton's dome certainly does exist. Just like a regular cube. Again, it's not an exotic shape. But it doesn't need to be perfect to exist -- otherwise nothing would exist at all!