The irresistable force paradox: I am reminded of this paradox often when I find myself once again caught up in discourse on OPP. Posters seem to assume the qualities of both the...

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find myself once again caught up in discourse on OPP. Posters seem to assume the qualities of both the irresistible force and/or the immoveable object.

The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox/shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two entities.

The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.

An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally: 'spear-shield'). This term originates from a story in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾, "from each-other spear shield"), or "self-contradictory".
Another ancient example illustrating this theme can be found in the story of the Teumessian fox, who can never be caught, and the hound Laelaps, who never misses what it hunts. Realizing the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars.

The problems associated with this paradox can be applied to any other conflict between two abstractly defined extremes that are opposite.

One of the answers generated by seeming paradoxes like these is that there is no contradiction – that there is a false dilemma. Dr. Christopher Kaczor suggested that the need to change indicates a lack of power rather than the possession thereof, and as such a person who was omniscient would never need to change their mind – not changing the future would be consistent with omniscience rather than contradicting it.

In the same way, an unstoppable force, an object or force with infinite inertia, would be consistent with the definition of an immovable object, in that they would be one and the same. Any object whose momentum or motion cannot be changed is an immovable object, and it would halt any object that moved relative to it, making it an unstoppable force.

A deterministic universe may contain more than one of such forces/objects as long as they are never determined to meet in the entire history of such a universe. Indeed, in the context of such a universe, one could redefine the words "irresistible" and "immovable" to "is never successfully resisted" and "is never successfully moved" (within the fixed history of said deterministic universe) instead of the counterfactual possibilities. This is similar to the Novikov self-consistency principle of the grandfather paradox in time-travel scenarios.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

slatten49 wrote:

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find myself once again caught up in discourse on OPP. Posters seem to assume the qualities of both the irresistible force and/or the immoveable object.

The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox/shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two entities.

The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.

An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally: 'spear-shield'). This term originates from a story in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾, "from each-other spear shield"), or "self-contradictory".
Another ancient example illustrating this theme can be found in the story of the Teumessian fox, who can never be caught, and the hound Laelaps, who never misses what it hunts. Realizing the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars.

The problems associated with this paradox can be applied to any other conflict between two abstractly defined extremes that are opposite.

One of the answers generated by seeming paradoxes like these is that there is no contradiction – that there is a false dilemma. Dr. Christopher Kaczor suggested that the need to change indicates a lack of power rather than the possession thereof, and as such a person who was omniscient would never need to change their mind – not changing the future would be consistent with omniscience rather than contradicting it.

In the same way, an unstoppable force, an object or force with infinite inertia, would be consistent with the definition of an immovable object, in that they would be one and the same. Any object whose momentum or motion cannot be changed is an immovable object, and it would halt any object that moved relative to it, making it an unstoppable force.

A deterministic universe may contain more than one of such forces/objects as long as they are never determined to meet in the entire history of such a universe. Indeed, in the context of such a universe, one could redefine the words "irresistible" and "immovable" to "is never successfully resisted" and "is never successfully moved" (within the fixed history of said deterministic universe) instead of the counterfactual possibilities. This is similar to the Novikov self-consistency principle of the grandfather paradox in time-travel scenarios.

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find my... (show quote)

Sounds like a synopsis of basic human nature.

Here's an example;

Man1 - look at this snake

Man2 - that's not a snake

Man1 - well, what is it?

Man2 - I don't know, but it's not a snake

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

slatten49 wrote:

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find myself once again caught up in discourse on OPP. Posters seem to assume the qualities of both the irresistible force and/or the immoveable object.

The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox/shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two entities.

The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.

An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally: 'spear-shield'). This term originates from a story in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾, "from each-other spear shield"), or "self-contradictory".
Another ancient example illustrating this theme can be found in the story of the Teumessian fox, who can never be caught, and the hound Laelaps, who never misses what it hunts. Realizing the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars.

The problems associated with this paradox can be applied to any other conflict between two abstractly defined extremes that are opposite.

One of the answers generated by seeming paradoxes like these is that there is no contradiction – that there is a false dilemma. Dr. Christopher Kaczor suggested that the need to change indicates a lack of power rather than the possession thereof, and as such a person who was omniscient would never need to change their mind – not changing the future would be consistent with omniscience rather than contradicting it.

In the same way, an unstoppable force, an object or force with infinite inertia, would be consistent with the definition of an immovable object, in that they would be one and the same. Any object whose momentum or motion cannot be changed is an immovable object, and it would halt any object that moved relative to it, making it an unstoppable force.

A deterministic universe may contain more than one of such forces/objects as long as they are never determined to meet in the entire history of such a universe. Indeed, in the context of such a universe, one could redefine the words "irresistible" and "immovable" to "is never successfully resisted" and "is never successfully moved" (within the fixed history of said deterministic universe) instead of the counterfactual possibilities. This is similar to the Novikov self-consistency principle of the grandfather paradox in time-travel scenarios.

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find my... (show quote)

哎呀我的天呀。。这个矛盾怎么这么复杂。。

反正别想是矛复杂的事，或者是盾复杂的事。。。这个是与人复不复杂有关系

T***slation: Dear Lord...How complicated this contradiction is.. Anyways, don't consider it a question of the spear being complicated, or the shield being complicated..This is a question of people being complicated...

Pariahjf

slatten49 wrote:

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find myself once again caught up in discourse on OPP. Posters seem to assume the qualities of both the irresistible force and/or the immoveable object.

The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox/shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two entities.

The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.

An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally: 'spear-shield'). This term originates from a story in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾, "from each-other spear shield"), or "self-contradictory".
Another ancient example illustrating this theme can be found in the story of the Teumessian fox, who can never be caught, and the hound Laelaps, who never misses what it hunts. Realizing the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars.

The problems associated with this paradox can be applied to any other conflict between two abstractly defined extremes that are opposite.

One of the answers generated by seeming paradoxes like these is that there is no contradiction – that there is a false dilemma. Dr. Christopher Kaczor suggested that the need to change indicates a lack of power rather than the possession thereof, and as such a person who was omniscient would never need to change their mind – not changing the future would be consistent with omniscience rather than contradicting it.

In the same way, an unstoppable force, an object or force with infinite inertia, would be consistent with the definition of an immovable object, in that they would be one and the same. Any object whose momentum or motion cannot be changed is an immovable object, and it would halt any object that moved relative to it, making it an unstoppable force.

A deterministic universe may contain more than one of such forces/objects as long as they are never determined to meet in the entire history of such a universe. Indeed, in the context of such a universe, one could redefine the words "irresistible" and "immovable" to "is never successfully resisted" and "is never successfully moved" (within the fixed history of said deterministic universe) instead of the counterfactual possibilities. This is similar to the Novikov self-consistency principle of the grandfather paradox in time-travel scenarios.

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find my... (show quote)

Enjoyable read... Thanks...

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

slatten49 wrote:

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find myself once again caught up in discourse on OPP. Posters seem to assume the qualities of both the irresistible force and/or the immoveable object.

The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox/shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two entities.

The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.

An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally: 'spear-shield'). This term originates from a story in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾, "from each-other spear shield"), or "self-contradictory".
Another ancient example illustrating this theme can be found in the story of the Teumessian fox, who can never be caught, and the hound Laelaps, who never misses what it hunts. Realizing the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars.

The problems associated with this paradox can be applied to any other conflict between two abstractly defined extremes that are opposite.

One of the answers generated by seeming paradoxes like these is that there is no contradiction – that there is a false dilemma. Dr. Christopher Kaczor suggested that the need to change indicates a lack of power rather than the possession thereof, and as such a person who was omniscient would never need to change their mind – not changing the future would be consistent with omniscience rather than contradicting it.

In the same way, an unstoppable force, an object or force with infinite inertia, would be consistent with the definition of an immovable object, in that they would be one and the same. Any object whose momentum or motion cannot be changed is an immovable object, and it would halt any object that moved relative to it, making it an unstoppable force.

A deterministic universe may contain more than one of such forces/objects as long as they are never determined to meet in the entire history of such a universe. Indeed, in the context of such a universe, one could redefine the words "irresistible" and "immovable" to "is never successfully resisted" and "is never successfully moved" (within the fixed history of said deterministic universe) instead of the counterfactual possibilities. This is similar to the Novikov self-consistency principle of the grandfather paradox in time-travel scenarios.

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find my... (show quote)

Thanks Slatten for another meaty topic.

Wonder what happens to the paradox if one throws randomness (quantum mechanics) into this deterministic universe. Oh my head.....she spins.

MR Mister Loc: Washington DC

slatten49 wrote:

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find myself once again caught up in discourse on OPP. Posters seem to assume the qualities of both the irresistible force and/or the immoveable object.

The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox/shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two entities.

The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.

An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally: 'spear-shield'). This term originates from a story in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾, "from each-other spear shield"), or "self-contradictory".
Another ancient example illustrating this theme can be found in the story of the Teumessian fox, who can never be caught, and the hound Laelaps, who never misses what it hunts. Realizing the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars.

The problems associated with this paradox can be applied to any other conflict between two abstractly defined extremes that are opposite.

One of the answers generated by seeming paradoxes like these is that there is no contradiction – that there is a false dilemma. Dr. Christopher Kaczor suggested that the need to change indicates a lack of power rather than the possession thereof, and as such a person who was omniscient would never need to change their mind – not changing the future would be consistent with omniscience rather than contradicting it.

In the same way, an unstoppable force, an object or force with infinite inertia, would be consistent with the definition of an immovable object, in that they would be one and the same. Any object whose momentum or motion cannot be changed is an immovable object, and it would halt any object that moved relative to it, making it an unstoppable force.

A deterministic universe may contain more than one of such forces/objects as long as they are never determined to meet in the entire history of such a universe. Indeed, in the context of such a universe, one could redefine the words "irresistible" and "immovable" to "is never successfully resisted" and "is never successfully moved" (within the fixed history of said deterministic universe) instead of the counterfactual possibilities. This is similar to the Novikov self-consistency principle of the grandfather paradox in time-travel scenarios.

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find my... (show quote)

Lots of words, no logic!

bylm1-Bernie

slatten49 wrote:

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find myself once again caught up in discourse on OPP. Posters seem to assume the qualities of both the irresistible force and/or the immoveable object.

The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox/shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two entities.

The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.

An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally: 'spear-shield'). This term originates from a story in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾, "from each-other spear shield"), or "self-contradictory".
Another ancient example illustrating this theme can be found in the story of the Teumessian fox, who can never be caught, and the hound Laelaps, who never misses what it hunts. Realizing the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars.

The problems associated with this paradox can be applied to any other conflict between two abstractly defined extremes that are opposite.

One of the answers generated by seeming paradoxes like these is that there is no contradiction – that there is a false dilemma. Dr. Christopher Kaczor suggested that the need to change indicates a lack of power rather than the possession thereof, and as such a person who was omniscient would never need to change their mind – not changing the future would be consistent with omniscience rather than contradicting it.

In the same way, an unstoppable force, an object or force with infinite inertia, would be consistent with the definition of an immovable object, in that they would be one and the same. Any object whose momentum or motion cannot be changed is an immovable object, and it would halt any object that moved relative to it, making it an unstoppable force.

A deterministic universe may contain more than one of such forces/objects as long as they are never determined to meet in the entire history of such a universe. Indeed, in the context of such a universe, one could redefine the words "irresistible" and "immovable" to "is never successfully resisted" and "is never successfully moved" (within the fixed history of said deterministic universe) instead of the counterfactual possibilities. This is similar to the Novikov self-consistency principle of the grandfather paradox in time-travel scenarios.

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find my... (show quote)

This is a question my Dad proposed to me many years ago when I was about 12. When I said I didn't know and asked him what the answer was, he said he wasn't sure but thought it might result in the splitting of an atom. Not being a physicist, I'm not sure if that was a viable answer but it sounded good to me at the time. I think I'll ask my step son who is a Physicist and familiar with quantum mechanics and the like. Anyway, it makes more sense than continually speculating about whether Trump colluded with the Russians or not.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

MR Mister wrote:

Lots of words, no logic!

Some concepts are difficult to grasp on the first read.

billy a Loc: South Florida

slatten49 wrote:

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find myself once again caught up in discourse on OPP. Posters seem to assume the qualities of both the irresistible force and/or the immoveable object.

The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox/shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two entities.

The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.

An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally: 'spear-shield'). This term originates from a story in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾, "from each-other spear shield"), or "self-contradictory".
Another ancient example illustrating this theme can be found in the story of the Teumessian fox, who can never be caught, and the hound Laelaps, who never misses what it hunts. Realizing the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars.

The problems associated with this paradox can be applied to any other conflict between two abstractly defined extremes that are opposite.

One of the answers generated by seeming paradoxes like these is that there is no contradiction – that there is a false dilemma. Dr. Christopher Kaczor suggested that the need to change indicates a lack of power rather than the possession thereof, and as such a person who was omniscient would never need to change their mind – not changing the future would be consistent with omniscience rather than contradicting it.

In the same way, an unstoppable force, an object or force with infinite inertia, would be consistent with the definition of an immovable object, in that they would be one and the same. Any object whose momentum or motion cannot be changed is an immovable object, and it would halt any object that moved relative to it, making it an unstoppable force.

A deterministic universe may contain more than one of such forces/objects as long as they are never determined to meet in the entire history of such a universe. Indeed, in the context of such a universe, one could redefine the words "irresistible" and "immovable" to "is never successfully resisted" and "is never successfully moved" (within the fixed history of said deterministic universe) instead of the counterfactual possibilities. This is similar to the Novikov self-consistency principle of the grandfather paradox in time-travel scenarios.

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find my... (show quote)

What first,chicken/egg? Is there a rock so heavy,God can't lift it...and the Biggy; Is there "Life" after "Death"?
I learned true humility the day I realized I wasn't meant to know everything...and accepted that, allowing me to simply marvel at all the cool stuff God has done.
I've got enough just figuring how my damn phone works.

Wonttakeitanymore

If you want to know which came first the chicken or the egg u need to order it from amazon!!! Lol

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

billy a wrote:

What first,chicken/egg? Is there a rock so heavy,God can't lift it...and the Biggy; Is there "Life" after "Death"?
I learned true humility the day I realized I wasn't meant to know everything...and accepted that, allowing me to simply marvel at all the cool stuff God has done.
I've got enough just figuring how my damn phone works.

My uncle told me if the chicken didn't come there would be no egg...

Took an adolescent me a long time to get that one

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

My uncle told me if the chicken didn't come there would be no egg...

Took an adolescent me a long time to get that one

I agree, who is going to sit on the egg so it hatches? I just read this morning that one type of shark has been found to eat grass at times and when it does, certain digestive enzymes turn on. I also read that a Blue Whale's tongue is heavier and larger than an African fully grown bull elephant. I love learning new things. Our God is an awesome God!

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Peewee wrote:

I agree, who is going to sit on the egg so it hatches? I just read this morning that one type of shark has been found to eat grass at times and when it does, certain digestive enzymes turn on. I also read that a Blue Whale's tongue is heavier and larger than an African fully grown bull elephant. I love learning new things. Our God is an awesome God!

Absolutely

To this day I find salmon spawning amazing

billy a Loc: South Florida

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

My uncle told me if the chicken didn't come there would be no egg...

Took an adolescent me a long time to get that one

Message recieved,Canuckus... 🐥

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Peewee wrote:

I agree, who is going to sit on the egg so it hatches? I just read this morning that one type of shark has been found to eat grass at times and when it does, certain digestive enzymes turn on. I also read that a Blue Whale's tongue is heavier and larger than an African fully grown bull elephant. I love learning new things. Our God is an awesome God!

I really like that elephant tongue information... that is what we need, more meaningful stuff to keep our minds busy.

No kidding,, I find that fascinating.. who the heck weighs the tongue of a whale..
A job of pure love..

Kids from the town I did grade school in.. visiting Duluth MN..