TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Unstoppable Force meets Unmovable Object

Go To

Meklar from Milky Way Since: Dec, 2012 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
#26: Jan 17th 2013 at 12:59:57 PM

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 is pretty clear to me that God could not create a rock too heavy for him to lift. A rock being too heavy for God to lift would imply a limitation on God's power, whereas 'omnipotence' specifically means power with no limitations. Being too heavy for God to lift is not a property of a rock, it is a relationship between the rock and God; and being omnipotent means God does not partake of any relationships that limit his power.

What he could do is use his omnipotence to destroy itself, and put limitations on his power so that he couldn't lift the rock. It then may then be the case that there is nothing that can lift the rock. I guess in context this means you can't have the 'unstoppable force' and 'immovable object' existing together. The way the God/rock question is usually worded puts precedence on God's power. If you worded it to put precedence on the rock's lack of liftability relationships, you wouldn't be allowed to describe God as 'omnipotent'.

It's only a different question if omnipotence is defined as surpassing logic
There are interesting questions to be asked around this topic. For instance, we know of certain inherent limitations on what our kind of logic can do (consider theorems by Godel and Turing). It might be possible to have logic that doesn't have those limitations, but may still have higher limitations. I'm not sure whether such logic could circumvent Godel's theorem, or whether our logic even equips us to address that question.

The original form here (the thing with God and the rock) is meant to prove that omnipotence leads to paradoxes.
Which, as I pointed out, it doesn't really do. At least not that way.

I actually think omniscience is more likely to be paradoxical than omnipotence, but that may be off-topic...

Infinite means it has to happen eventually, somewhere.
Not necessarily. For instance, it is fairly easy to construct a number that is irrational (implying that the digits after the radix point in any rational base will be infinite and feature an infinite number of different finite sequences) but can be proven to have the property that certain finite sequences of digits will not appear.

Join my forum game!
Matues Since: Sep, 2011
#27: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:00:34 PM

I actually think omniscience is more likely to be paradoxical than omnipotence, but that may be off-topic...

That sounds fairly interesting.

The real question of the Omnipotence Paradox is simply: Can an Omnipotent Being limit it's own power in such a way that it can not unlimit it?

Of course, then they are no longer Omnipotent, simply because there is one small thing they are incapable of doing.

IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#28: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:05:54 PM

[up] I cannot see why that question cannot be a "yes" since "limiting their power" falls under the "anything" in "omnipotent beings can do anything they want". In other words, I don't see how this is a paradox at all, in the same way as the Grandfather Paradox in time-travel.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#29: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:12:47 PM

Ira would be correct if it's omnipotence at that instance.

Matues Since: Sep, 2011
#30: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:16:53 PM

[up][up], [up]

Exactly.

Of course, once limited, then there is something they are incapable of doing.

Which precludes them being all-powerful.

edited 17th Jan '13 3:17:19 PM by Matues

IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#31: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:36:22 PM

[up] And there's nothing wrong with that either. Power can wane as it can grow.

I never see why that's a paradox at all.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#32: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:43:45 PM

We can of course formulate this in another way:

  • If X, then not Y.

  • N is omnipotent.

  • Can N do X and Y at the same time?

There; paradox. If N can't do X and Y at the same time, N is not omnipotent; and if N can do both of thsoe at the same time, then the first axiom is incorrect.

(It doesn't really matter what X and Y are, but let's say they could be: "X=open a container" and "Y=hold the container's lid down." And no playing with "if force is applied to open the container, it is being opened" or such trickery; if the lid isn't opening even a little bit, it is closed; and if it isn't entirely closed, it is considered open. The key is that there has to be a binary condition that satisfies "if X then not Y.")

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Cassie The armored raven from Malaysia, but where? Since: Feb, 2011
The armored raven
#33: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:44:49 PM

Except kinetics and physics aren't so cut and dry.

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#34: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:46:22 PM

[up][up]Actually, no. If X = ~Y (not Y), then X ^ Y (X and Y) does not exist, because it's a contradiction. Omnipotence only requires that you can do anything, not something that isn't anything.

edited 17th Jan '13 3:47:46 PM by Trivialis

TenTailsBeast The Ultimate Lifeform from The Culture Since: Feb, 2012
#35: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:51:08 PM

I personally define omnipotence as not "the ability to do absolutely anything", but "having power without limits". So an omnipotent being couldn't create a square circle, not because their power is limited, but because that's a logical contradiction, gibberish without meaning.

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.
Matues Since: Sep, 2011
#36: Jan 17th 2013 at 3:57:29 PM

And there's nothing wrong with that either. Power can wane as it can grow.

I never see why that's a paradox at all.

Omnipotence means all-powerful. If there is something you are unable to do, you are not omnipotent.

[up][up]

A contradiction is not something?

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#37: Jan 17th 2013 at 4:01:00 PM

Well, concept of a contradiction is something we talk about. But if your supposed object results in a state of contradiction, then you never had an object.

And I think Ira is distinguishing "omnipotence at a moment of time" from a general omnipotence by nature that cannot be revoked. It makes sense. We saw something like omnipotence at a moment in Bruce Almighty.

Another analogy is that you're a carpenter with abilities that can lead to injuries that would disable you from carpentry. Your powers led to the disabling of that power.

edited 17th Jan '13 4:01:43 PM by Trivialis

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#38: Jan 17th 2013 at 4:05:36 PM

Honestly, though, I agree that just because you can define some sort of nonsensical scenario doesn't have to mean that you're required to take it seriously. If it's logically impossible it should be by default out of the definition of any concepts you bring in, such as "omnipotence." Demanding that an omnipotent entity must hold the lid open while simultaneously holding it closed means nothing, even though our brains can sort of imagine it. (Or rather, we can try but in the end, for me at least, the only way that I feel as if I've imagined a box that is shut and open at the same time is when I'm actually imagining two boxes.)

That said, I think we can probably get some more out of the physics of the originally proposed scenario of an unstoppable force approaching an unmovable object. Granted, the proposition that the force must pass through the object is a very easy and acceptable solution, but let's rule that out and see if we can come up with anything.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#39: Jan 17th 2013 at 5:00:43 PM

[up][up][up] Yeah, but my point is that before such a rock exist the entity is still omnipotent. There's no rock that they cannot lift until they make one.

[up][up] He's got what I'm saying. And I found that latter definition to be self contradictory anyway: if you cannot give up your omnipotence than you're not omnipotent because "giving up omnipotence" falls under the umbrella "being able to do anything".

edited 17th Jan '13 5:05:10 PM by IraTheSquire

Matues Since: Sep, 2011
#40: Jan 17th 2013 at 5:35:13 PM

[up]

Exactly.

Once they make one, can they or can they not lift it?

If they can, then logical contradiction.

If they can't, they are no longer omnipotent. Still omnipotent in every respect not regarding lifting that rock, but they are no longer "All-Powerful".

IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#41: Jan 17th 2013 at 5:37:56 PM

[up] And I'll answer "Of course not, and thus by creating a rock that they cannot life, they give up their omnipotence."

Matues Since: Sep, 2011
GAP Formerly G.G. from Who Knows? Since: May, 2011 Relationship Status: In love with love
Formerly G.G.
#43: Jan 17th 2013 at 7:15:53 PM

Are you sure that said omnipotent isn't just limiting itself?

"Fan, a Mega Man character."
Djanchorhead Survival Expert from Raccoon City Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
Survival Expert
#44: Mar 17th 2013 at 7:40:45 PM

What happens when a Unstoppable force meets a Unmovable Object nothing it's a trick question the two would cancel each other out.

If I may use an example it would be like Jill Valentine facing the titular monster in ResidentEvil3Nemesis

If you want to make enemies try and change something - Woodrow Wilson
Matues Since: Sep, 2011
#45: Mar 18th 2013 at 6:34:14 AM

[up][up]

If it has limits, then it is at least temporarily non-omnipotent.

[up]

If they cancel each other out, then were they really unstoppable and immovable?

DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#46: Mar 18th 2013 at 10:07:09 AM

They can't exist in the same universe. An immovable object negates the possible existence of an unstoppable force. The unstoppable force negates the possibility of an immovable object. You can have one, or the other, never both.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#47: Mar 18th 2013 at 10:20:58 AM

I'd say that they can exist in the same universe, if, and only if, there is no interference between them. By which I mean, if the unstoppable force meets the unmovable object, it would just pass right through.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#48: Mar 18th 2013 at 10:54:28 AM

"I'd say that they can exist in the same universe, if, and only if, there is no interference between them. "

Exactly. In physics terms, the immovable object in fact has an unstoppable force. It depends on which reference frame you're looking at. If you can't change its own natural course, you can't move it away from it.

edited 18th Mar '13 10:55:00 AM by Trivialis

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#49: Mar 18th 2013 at 11:53:17 AM

Fun game! Can I join?

My position will be that since neither "Unstoppable" nor "Unmovable" can be precisely defined, the question is unanswerable. We cant even tell if it's meaningful or not.

"Unstoppable" is an absolute, like "all powerful" or "omnipotent". Human beings have never been able to define exactly what that means, in the sense that we cant conceive what such a thing would really be like. We are unable to imagine anything that is "infinite"- how does one model a system with an infinite quantity of anything? Zeno's paradoxes are enough to demonstrate that we don't really know what we are talking about (the paradoxes arise because distance is divisible to an infinite degree). Humans are incapable of comprehending how a being with infinite power would behave, or how such a being would interact with another being with an infinite power of a different nature. It's exactly equivalent to the following statement:

An incomprehensible concept interacts with another incomprehensible concept. What is the outcome?

The answer, obviously, is "It's incomprehensible." The whole problem may be an outcome of how humans use language to construct symbols of concepts that we cant define, and then treat the symbols as if they were the thing itself (that's the resolution that I've seen for Zeno's paradoxes- the paradoxes are illusions born of the manner in which humans use symbolic language).

Language is not reality. Symbols are mere tools we use to represent our mental experience, but just because we can imagine a thing, doesn't mean that we understand it, or even that the imagined thing has any real meaning.

On the other hand, now I feel a little bit like a straw vulcan.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Carciofus Is that cake frosting? from Alpha Tucanae I Since: May, 2010
Is that cake frosting?
#50: Mar 18th 2013 at 12:45:07 PM

We are unable to imagine anything that is "infinite"- how does one model a system with an infinite quantity of anything? Zeno's paradoxes are enough to demonstrate that we don't really know what we are talking about (the paradoxes arise because distance is divisible to an infinite degree).
Well, as Aristotle already pointed out, all that Zeno's argument demonstrates is that infinite sums of decreasing quantities can have finite results. There is nothing mysterious in this. The concept of infinity is a tricky one, no doubt, and there is much about it that is not known yet; but just because something involves the infinite, it does not mean that it is unknowable. There are whole branches of math which are dedicated to the study of the properties of various notions of infinity.

But I agree on the language/reality issue. That's the key ingredient to what I consider the best solution of the whole stone argument: omnipotence is about being able to bring any state of things into being, and language is a method for specifying states of things, but not all grammatically well-formed descriptions correspond to states of thing.

God cannot create a potato that is not a potato, because if something is a potato then it is a potato. This is not a limit of God, but a simple consequence of the fact that "a potato that is is not a potato" does not describe anything at all. Similarly, God cannot create a stone that even a being who could do anything could not lift, because that is just as meaningless a description.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Total posts: 117
Top