>>11335968>>11336391It's a stupid question with no answer, because "smart" is not strictly defined.
All you could do is find, let's say, the person who can get a highest score on an IQ test (maybe whoever completes it the quickest with all the answers right, is that how they measure high IQs?)
But all that shows is who won that contest, at that point in time. It doesn't even mean that guy is the best at taking IQ tests. Because tomorrow, maybe someone else might beat him.
I suppose if someone consistently was the best at taking IQ tests then you might want to call them "the best" or even "the smartest person in the world". For the colloquial usage of that term, someone who achieved that would probably be fitting for the title.
But then again there could still be someone out there who hasn't been tested, who might be better.
Perhaps we need to understand that when humans give somebody the title of being "the best" at something, it just means they won a contest to earn that title. There could still be someone out there, somewhere, that could beat them. Although I suppose that's unlikely in some contests - e.g. world's strongest man. It's probably not the case that there is anybody outside of that competition who is stronger than the winner, since being that strong takes a ridiculous amount of training, good diet, etc., which you would expect the participants to be doing better than anybody else on Earth.
But there possibly COULD be someone stronger, who just isn't interested in taking part in that particular contest.
