Newtonian physics: all forces are unstoppable, no object is unmovable. Objects are not rigid.
Fight smart, not fair.edited 18th Mar '13 11:28:30 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.It's not really about the universe, I think, but about language. What would it mean for something to have four corners and no corner at all?
If our language operates under the assumptions that four is different from zero and that the number of corners of a figure is a function of the figure (that is, a figure has a single, fixed number of corners) then it follows at once that there is "a figure whose number of corners is zero and is four" is a description that does not apply to anything.
Of course, we could change the rules: for example, we could say that we are working not with the usual integers but with modular arithmetic
, in which it is certainly possible to have 0 = 4. Still, this is changing the definition of "number", not the properties of the universe.
Or we could change, along similar lines, the definition of "corner", or the definition of "figure", and so on.
edited 19th Mar '13 12:57:15 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.No, no, no. Don't make that mistake. Language is not an arbitrary symbol-set; language represents a reciprocal relationship between ourselves and the external universe. We don't create 'circles' by language - we use the word to describe what results when we map a boundary around a series of points (on a plane) that are all equidistant from a defined centre.
And one of the universal properties of "a boundary around a series of points that are all equidistant from a defined centre" is that you will never get a square - because if you use the points to construct a square boundary, the points won't follow the 'equidistant' rule.
You do not need language to create a circle. You don't even need life. A raindrop in a lake will do a pretty good (if temporary) job.
Modular arithmetic doesn't change the rules - it simply takes a different subset of the universe and then models that. In that particular subset it is possible to say that '24' is '0' - and being able to do that can be very useful. Doesn't mean it'll apply elsewhere.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.How about this? They surrender.
edited 19th Mar '13 7:56:14 AM by TrashJack
"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's Dictionary![]()
![]()
Whether there are circles or squares in the universe, whether there is such a thing as a physical geometrical space, and even whether there exists an universe at all are questions which are completely irrelevant to the issue of whether the description "a square circle" (or, better, a more precise and formal version of this) is or is not self-contradictory.
If a description is contradictory then it is necessarily so; therefore, contingent matters (such as the existence of the universe, or its properties) are not relevant to the issue.
The fact that there can be no such a thing as a square circle (for the usual definitions of "square" and "circle", and within a geometrical space with reasonable properties) is a purely mathematical, linguistic matter.
You can think of the semantics of a language as a procedure that turns every statement into some sort of algorithm that, if applied to a specification of the configuration of the world, returns "true" or "false"; and the statement is true if this algorithm returns "true" of the actual state of the world, and it is false otherwise.
Saying that "there exists a square circle" is contradictory means that this expression gets translated to the algorithm that always returns "false", no matter the state of the world. And this is a property of the language and of the algorithm to which that statement is translated, not of the actual world.
edited 19th Mar '13 8:26:54 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Another possibility is that the space around the unmovable object gets stretched. The object itself stands still, with respect to its own frame of refernce; but the very fabric of reality around it is ripped out by the unstoppable force (and therefore, from the point of view of the frame from which the force is applied, the object is seen as more and more distant).
edited 19th Mar '13 10:19:13 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Well, you could, but it's an extremely inadequate model. And suggesting that the real world is 'irrelevant' to your model also suggests that the model is inadequate. It's broadly an admission that it only works within a small, self-contained system.
The language model you suggest, for example, is more suited to current machine language or computer programming languages. Real-world languages are capable of returning states not dissimilar to that darn cat; both true and false at the same time.
In applying the principle of non-contradiction, it always helps if the system you're applying it to is, in fact, logical.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.I see there being three outcomes roughly corresponding to the arguments of 'can god make a rock so big he can't lift it'.
First, if they're practically unstoppble/immmovable, as in the magnitude of the force/mass of the object is rational but too great to counteract by any means available to us, then it just comes down to conventional physics and conservation of momentum.
If either of them are literally unstoppable or immovable, as in the magnitude is infinite, and there's nothing that could stop/move them, then the other can't exist. If something is truly unstoppable, then nothing is truly immovable, and vice versa. It's not merely a matter of them meeting; the two of them existing is logically inconsistent.
And then if you insist that they're literally unstoppable/immovable and that this defies the laws of logic itself, the force is stopped, the object is moved, the force continues, and the object is unmoved, simultaneously.
edited 19th Mar '13 4:25:13 PM by Kotep
I don't think there can be an unstoppable force in conventional physics, now that I think about it. F = ma. That's force equals mass times acceleration. So if you have unstoppable force, your speed is increasing at an infinite rate, isn't it?
Therefore I don't think this question is really about conventional physics.
On the other hand, the real world is certainly relevant to the question of whether something is or is not true. A statement is true if it holds of the "actual world": for example, the statement "I am a platypus" is true if I am a platypus, and it is false otherwise.
In applying the principle of non-contradiction, it always helps if the system you're applying it to is, in fact, logical.
Reality is neither logical nor non-logical. Reality simply is. Asking whether it satisfies the principle of non-contradiction is a category mistake: there are no such things as negations or conjunctions in the physical world, so it makes no sense to ask whether (A and not A) can be true in the physical world. All that reality gives you are raw facts — basic observations, if you want. Nothing else, but nothing more.
Everything else is man-made.
edited 19th Mar '13 10:59:34 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.My theory: the Unstoppable force goes through the unmovable object and keeps going, and the unmovable object stays where it is. Everybody Wins!
The full argument parses something like this: Concept A ("Omnipotent") maps to Concept B ("Can do anything without limit"). Yet we know of two concepts C ("An object with four corners") and D ("an object without any corners") that by definition cannot be mapped be mapped to each other. Therefore Concept A cannot be mapped to Concept B (because we have found at least one thing that cannot be done), which leaves A without any meaningful content.
This further parses into "God cannot make an object that possesses mutually exclusive attributes." An object either has corners or it doesn't, a line is either perfectly straight or it is curved, a food item is either a Big Mac or a meatloaf. It cant be both, therefore there is no omnipotence.
The problem is that we cant tell if the fact that objects cannot possess mutually exclusive attributes in an inherent quality of the universe, or an outcome of the way we perceive it. Since we don't really know what dimensional space is, and since we have no source of information apart from our perception, the question is unanswerable. Perhaps there is some perspective, unavailable and incomprehensible to us, from which lines are neither straight nor curved, but both. Perhaps not, we cannot know. All we can say is that "Omnipotence", and by extension any other concept that includes "infinite" as a quality, makes no sense to us.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.It seems we need to think in terms of variant infinities. Much like there's more than one type of infinity, there is, on a theoretical level at least, more than one level of omnipotence.
There's the omnipotence constrained by logic, that can do anything that is possible, and the omnipotence unconstrained by logic, which can do anything.
A conversation with the latter may go something like this:
God: Hello there, I'm God.
Skeptic: Ok, prove it. Draw a four sided triangle.
God: Ok. *scribble scribble scribble*
Skeptic: Wow.
If you think about it, for a truly omnipotent being not existing would only be a minor obstacle.
That's actually a pretty awesome concept for an Eldritch Abomination. A nonexistent being so powerful that if it were to make itself exist (which due to its logic defying nature is a possibility) reality would sunder before it.
But logic is not a constraint over reality, it is a constraint over language.
One can make up languages that obey different logical rules — ones in which there are such things as truth gaps, for example, or ones in which (A and A) is not the same as (A), or ones in which there are more than two truth values, or so on. Such things have been done, and have their uses for certain applications (although not for others).
God cannot create a square circle for exactly the same reason why God cannot create a srarg blag targ. "Srarg blag targ" is not a meaningful description; and neither is "a square circle", for the usual definitions of "square" and "circle".
edited 20th Mar '13 1:00:15 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The universe has structure and rules. Some things are impossible within that structure, no matter how powerful you are. Sometimes the universe just doesn't work that way - for example, nobody can make a square circle because you can't make a square circle no matter who you are. Square circles don't exist.
edited 18th Mar '13 7:47:26 PM by resetlocksley
Fear is a superpower.