TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Unstoppable Force meets Unmovable Object

Go To

GAP Formerly G.G. from Who Knows? Since: May, 2011 Relationship Status: In love with love
Formerly G.G.
#1: Jan 16th 2013 at 12:53:23 PM

What happens when unstopable force meets an ummovable object? One way of putting this is: "Can God create something so big that he couldn't lift it"?

I read on some philosophy forums if an Unstoppable Force does come into contact with an Unmovable Object, the universe itself would cease to exist if it happened. The Other wiki calls it the The Irresistible Force Paradox as well as the Omnipotence Paradox.

It is almost the same thing yet it is asks the same basic question. Is omnipotence logically possible? What do you mean by Ominpotence? It may seem a modern question but ti is older than most people think it its. I am not really sure what would happen if they encounter each other but it is indeed something I am interested in.

[This post has been edited by a Moderator. The following note is also to be taken as Word of God:]

NOTE: This thread is not about whether or not God exists. Don't bring religion into this, and don't postulate entities that are "beyond logic." This thread is about omnipotence as a logical and scientific question.

edited 16th Jan '13 2:20:30 PM by BestOf

"Fan, a Mega Man character."
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#2: Jan 16th 2013 at 8:23:03 PM

"What happens when unstopable force meets an ummovable object? "

I will propose that a third option is possible. I'll use a similar analogy: if a sword that can cut anything meets a shield that can't be cut, which wins?

The third option would be that the sword and the shield possess an identical nature at some fundamental level, such that it's impossible for the sword to clash with the shield. In other words, if the first two options are "X beats Y" and "Y beats X" (so that the beaten one is a fraud), the third option is "X and Y cannot fight".

"Can God create something so big that he couldn't lift it"?

I think this is a more subtle question that needs more clarification. If you look at it in basic terms, it looks like God would not be able to create something untouchable in theory, because that would be outside the domain of omnipotence. A loose way to put it is, if God can do anything, this big object is not an "anything". However, God would be able to do something that cannot be undone at a given time, because that same God is willing that it's not undone. Do undo it would go against the same God's own intention.

dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#3: Jan 16th 2013 at 8:26:05 PM

Well, this does bring up Christian theology, but this discussion argues on its logical aspect as well.

edited 16th Jan '13 8:26:28 PM by dRoy

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
QuestionMarc Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
#4: Jan 16th 2013 at 8:35:29 PM

Are we assuming both objects are indestructible? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure both would be dissipated/destroyed.

Alternatively, the unstoppable is redirected in another direction and gets right back to being unstoppable.

Or, alternatively-er, one of the two items is only relatively it's quality, for example a train is unstoppable by human bodies, but it can be stopped by a mountain.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#5: Jan 16th 2013 at 9:14:36 PM

I'll assume that "unmovable" and "unstoppable" mean that they cannot be destroyed. If they could, they would stop - though I suppose you could argue that at the moment they cease to be they're sill doing their thing, and when they stop existing they are no longer bound by their definitions, as they have ceased to be. I'm sure we could talk about this for hours if someone invited Zeno into the room but I'll just skip that tripe and accept that the unmovable object will always be exactly where it was and the unstoppable object will never cease to move in its current direction. (So I'm also saying it's - and this is where I stop to invent a word - un-divert-able. So it's unstoppable and undivertable.

As the unstoppable object closes the gap between it and the unmovable object, for a brief moment there will exist a vacuum between them. The universe doesn't take well to vacuums - in fact, vacuums always produce energy. This has been confirmed by experiments on things like the Casimir Effect. (I checked it just now and what I'm about to postulate might not actually be consistent with real-life physics but I'm playing anyway.)

So, the two objects are approaching each other and neither can do anything expect meet their respective definitions. But if they were to actually meet a paradox would occur, and we can't have that. (Why not? Because I say so, that's why.)

I'm postulating that the vacuum between them would start to generate energy. Apparently the force affecting the plates in the Casimir arrangement can be either repulsive or attractive; in either case it can be said to be caused by virtual particles. (If you don't know what those are I'm sorry but you'll just have to accept that there's going to be energy and carry that with you through the rest of this.)

I could say that the repulsive energy would forever prevent the unstoppable object from meeting is unmovable enemy but that would cause it to stop (or slow down in a way that invites Zeno right back into the room) so I'm not going to go there.

So, anyway, the energy grows. Because the paradox cannot occur the universe has to find a way to survive this event. Thus the energy continues to grow until there is enough of it to bend space-time. The reaction would continue to escalate as the forces between the two objects continue to assimilate more and more space-time so that there can be something between the objects.

You probably noticed that I've just created a black hole here. This black hole would continue to grow at the rate that energy is created between the objects. I suppose it would be like all other black holes, except that its growth rate would be faster than just the matter it takes in from outside, as it would also be growing from the inside.

Right. So, would that black hole eventually grow to consume the universe? Since we've already postulated two objects that contain some notion of infinity in their definitions, I suppose it must. But if there is a stable rate at which it grows, it could be slow enough not to survive the heat death of the universe. So eventually it would exist alone while everything else is accelerating away from it faster than it can continue to influence, well, anything and everything.

But the rate at which everything in the universe is moving away from everything else is constantly growing. Thus eventually even the objects themselves would have to be torn apart as their constituent particles escape from each other. And this would... stop the unstoppable object. (The parts of the unmovable object would by definition always have to occupy the same space, so its disintegration would have to be expressed in terms of the space between its particles expanding. Thus in a sense it would never move, but it would just exist in a larger area.)

This is the sort of nonsense you get when you play with infinities.

(Please note that my postulations here are just idle chit-chat without more than a passing connection to real physics. A couple of things (such as the heat death of the universe) are broadly correct but I took some liberties with vacuum energy and so on.)

edited 16th Jan '13 9:16:08 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#7: Jan 16th 2013 at 9:29:25 PM

easy, when the 2 objects collide, the unstoppable object would move the space around the unmovable object, but not the object itself tongue

So from the point of view of the unstoppable object the unnmovable object would be moving and from the point of view of the unmovable obeject the unstoppable object would seem like it had stopped.

So in the end the question is more about the perspective of a third party than about the objects themselves.

What would a person see? it would depen on what he observed. So it would be relative.

edited 16th Jan '13 9:32:32 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#8: Jan 16th 2013 at 9:34:39 PM

If the whole universe were moving it would have to be moving in relation to something - otherwise it's not moving. Nothing can exist outside the universe (I'm just throwing this in as an axiomatic assumption) so the unmoved object would have to be the stationary thing in relation to which the universe moves. (If it weren't you'd have to assume some sort of background within which the universe could exist and against which it could move, but I'm not going to postulate that.)

So either it is an axis around which the universe turns, or the universe will eventually move too far from it and it will no longer be in the universe. But if the universe ejects it it'll cease to exist, and since that is not allowed the unmovable object has to be included in the universe - and thus the universe has to expand to always include that object.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
TrashJack Confirmed Doomer from beyond the Despair Event Horizon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Confirmed Doomer
#9: Jan 16th 2013 at 9:36:42 PM

How about this? They surrender.

"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's Dictionary
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#10: Jan 16th 2013 at 9:36:58 PM

[up][up]

it doesnt have to be the whole universe, just a part of it, the difference would be accounted by a difference in the passage of time in both objects.

In the unstoppable object time would move faster than in the unmovable object and the same would be true the other way around.

The thing about space is that you really dont have a point of reference for anything.

(I have no idea what I am talking about)

edited 16th Jan '13 9:38:53 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
QuestionMarc Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
#11: Jan 16th 2013 at 9:39:07 PM

Well, how about a universe shaped in a donut form, with the donut rotating in such as way that the object is always in the donut part?

Meklar from Milky Way Since: Dec, 2012 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
#12: Jan 16th 2013 at 10:34:19 PM

What happens when unstopable force meets an ummovable object? One way of putting this is: "Can God create something so big that he couldn't lift it"?
On the contrary, I think those are two rather different questions.

Join my forum game!
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#13: Jan 16th 2013 at 11:24:13 PM

It's the same question:

The heavy object made by God to be too heavy for even him to lift is the Unmovable object.

God is the Unstoppable Force, as he is supposed to be omnipotent.

It's only a different question if omnipotence is defined as surpassing logic, but that's rather beside the point of a thought experiment like this.

So from the point of view of the unstoppable object the unnmovable object would be moving and from the point of view of the unmovable obeject the unstoppable object would seem like it had stopped.

This can sort of work with the series of events I described: instead of the warping of space-time producing a Black Hole, it would warp just enough to avoid a collision. In that case the Unstoppable force/object would simply miss the Unmovable Object.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
DJay32 tired dream jockey from empty city Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Yes, we're lovers, and that is that
tired dream jockey
#14: Jan 16th 2013 at 11:32:06 PM

The way I see it, if the Unstoppable Force was an object moving in one direction (say, a car) and the Unmovable Object was an object in one spot (say, a rock), then when the car meets the rock the car will "stop," but its 'wheels' and 'engine' will continue with the exact same force, as it's the object that stops and not the force. Now, the friction and damage the still-turning wheels will cause to whatever's around the car, that's a different story.

The other way I see it is that the sentence is just an example of wordplay and isn't meant to apply realistically. But I do love hypotheticals.

have not forgotten
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#15: Jan 16th 2013 at 11:36:53 PM

I posit a perfectly inelastic collision, and the unstoppable force bounces off with no energy lost at all - just on a different vector.

Oooooor, it phases right through the immovable object like it isn't there. Kinda like light passing through glass, or Neutrinos passing through you all the time.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#16: Jan 16th 2013 at 11:40:07 PM

The original form here (the thing with God and the rock) is meant to prove that omnipotence leads to paradoxes. But omnipotence is just one type of infinity, and I should hope that everyone knows that infinity leads to logical paradoxes all the time.

BTW, just for fun and a bit off-topic, here's a nice thought experiment that uses infinity as an axiom:

  • Assume that the universe is infinitely old.

  • Assume that the universe is infinite in size, too.

  • Therefore anything that is within the laws of physics must have happened somewhere.

  • Therefore some species of aliens must have been capable of developing immortality, and some must have done so.

  • Therefore there was a species of aliens that eventually experience everything that was possible for them in the universe as far as they could reach.

  • Therefore they must have created an alternate reality - a simulation - into which they could pump their consciousness while erasing all of their memories. This way they could experience new - or "new," depending on how different the alternate reality was from their own - things

  • Because they had spent an infinity in that universe they must have discovered immortality again - and got bored again - and so on.

  • Because the universe has infinite history, this must have happened countless times.

  • Therefore it is virtually impossible that we exist in the original universe. Instead, we must (or almost must) be in one of the virtual realities.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#17: Jan 16th 2013 at 11:56:02 PM

Can God create something so big that he couldn't lift it?

A friend of mine says that the answer is "Yes. And then he will lift it." Because omnipotence by definition means can do anything, and "things that are impossible" falls under that umbrella.

My answer would be "Yea. But before he creates it, he still can do anything." Pretty much omnipotence includes being able to give up that omnipotence.

edited 16th Jan '13 11:56:57 PM by IraTheSquire

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#18: Jan 17th 2013 at 12:06:17 AM

[up][up]The third line is problematic - there's no guarantee that anything that could happen have had, even with infinite time. Probability-wise, it's possible for events to "miss" indefinitely.

And the lines below - I don't know how you got there.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#19: Jan 17th 2013 at 1:10:37 AM

Obviously, The unstoppable force and immovable object introduce themselves, go out for coffee, then fall in love and get married on Opposite Day on a ship floating in less water than the ship's volume, while Theseus plays the wedding march on a horn with finite volume but infinite surface area. Their offspring include their own grandfathers, a barber who may or may not shave himself, a ball that perfectly clones itself by breaking into five pieces, the entire pathologically lying population of Crete, and the set of all sets of offspring that do not contain themselves (there's an interestingly uninteresting number of them).

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#20: Jan 17th 2013 at 1:23:40 AM

I remember reading an "answer" saying they would never meet, because their very existence is mutually exclusive:

  • If an irresistible force exists, then there can be no unmovable object or else the force wouldn't be actually irresistible (since the object resists it).
  • If an unmovable object exists, then there can be no irresistible force or else the object wouldn't actually be unmovable (since the force moves it).
Which means, when both allegedly exists, one of them is not truly what it appears, but the answers can only come from observation of a collision between the two: The one that blinks first is the fraud.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Kzickas Since: Apr, 2009
#21: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:05:30 AM

Why is this considered a paradox?

If one can't stop moving and the other cannot be moved then if they hit each other the first will keep moving and the other will stay in place. So by definition they will pass through each other. Anything else and the descriptions are wrong.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#22: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:15:24 AM

The third line is problematic - there's no guarantee that anything that could happen have had, even with infinite time. Probability-wise, it's possible for events to "miss" indefinitely.

And the lines below - I don't know how you got there.

I'm not really sure if I should reply to this at all, since it's a different paradox than the one in the OP - and thus it's off-topic. This whole "argument" I presented here was just one way of illustrating what sort of stuff you can get away with when you start postilating infinities.

If the universe is infinite in time and space, it is absolutely impossible for anything to go on not-happening "indefinitely." Infinite means it has to happen eventually, somewhere. If it hasn't yet it will, maybe 30 billion billion billion years from now. Scale, probability - none of that matters if the universe is infinite in both space and time.

Everything after that follows from "if it is physically possible it must have happened."

There is of course a fleeting chance that what happens to you right now is the first time it has ever happened - in which case we're not in a simulated universe. But an overwhelming majority of universes will be simulations within simulations within simulations and so on. But of course that's assuming that the simulated universe that the aliens created is complex enough to breed another simulation.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Cassie The armored raven from Malaysia, but where? Since: Feb, 2011
The armored raven
#23: Jan 17th 2013 at 5:01:31 AM

This thread question isn't something new. A Chinese idiom was made in its sake: 自相矛盾

It means 'to prod your own shield with your spear', meaning to strike irony by yourself. But that is not the point is it? Behind the idiom was a tale. A weapons dealer boasted the sharpness of his spear, and the integrity of his shield. Then the people asked him: what would happen if his spear is used on his shield? The merchant promptly backed down, despite ruining his integrity.

In this thread's terms, the spear would be the so called Unstoppable Force, and the shield is the supposedly Unmovable Object. There are no such things in my experience. At least, not technically. Any force can be stopped if the opposing force offers a greater one than the incoming force, whilst any object can be moved if the motion is exerted efficiently to do so.

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...
Elfive (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#24: Jan 17th 2013 at 5:23:50 AM

The problem with the concept of an unmovable object is that there doesn't appear to be such a thing as an unmoving object.

The problem lies in relativity. For any object there exists a rest frame, which the object is considered to not be moving. There will always be another object which is moving with respect to that frame, but it too has a rest frame, which the first object is moving in.

Not to mention newtons law of motion, which states that F=ma. In other words, the only way for a force to produce no acceleration on an object would be for it to have infinite mass. This would result in a black hole of infinite size, which, unless it is the entire universe, does not exist.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#25: Jan 17th 2013 at 10:50:46 AM

If the universe is infinite in time and space, it is absolutely impossible for anything to go on not-happening "indefinitely." Infinite means it has to happen eventually, somewhere. If it hasn't yet it will, maybe 30 billion billion billion years from now. Scale, probability - none of that matters if the universe is infinite in both space and time.

Actually I would disagree. Infinite space and time does not mean everything possible has happened, just that there's unlimited opportunity (time/space resources) for a possible event to occur. When you flip a coin, it's theoretically possible to keep getting heads, even though the likelihood of consecutive heads keeps diminishing under equal-probability principles.

But in any case, the question as it stands is rather vague and needs to be clarified because it's possible, for instance, for forces within universe to actively avoid certain possible events from occurring.

On a more relevant note to the topic, I would dispute that infinity always leads to logical paradoxes. As a math student, I know that there are ways to treat the concept of infinity and have a consistent system - you just have to use different mindset than when you deal with ordinary numbers.


Total posts: 117
Top