| Revision as of 01:33, 22 June 2005 editAnville (talk | contribs)6,887 editsm grammar← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:35, 12 October 2005 edit undo62.101.74.252 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| The paradox should be understood as an exercise in logic, not as the postulation of a possible reality. According to modern scientific understanding, there are not and indeed cannot be either irresistible forces or immovable objects. An immovable object would have to have infinite ] and therefore infinite mass. Such an object would collapse under its own ] and create a ]. An irresistible force would imply an infinite energy, which by ]'s equation ''E = mc<sup>2</sup>'' is equivalent to an infinite mass. Note that, in the modern view, a cannonball which cannot be deflected and a wall which cannot be knocked down are both types of the same (impossible) object: an object with infinite inertia. | The paradox should be understood as an exercise in logic, not as the postulation of a possible reality. According to modern scientific understanding, there are not and indeed cannot be either irresistible forces or immovable objects. An immovable object would have to have infinite ] and therefore infinite mass. Such an object would collapse under its own ] and create a ]. An irresistible force would imply an infinite energy, which by ]'s equation ''E = mc<sup>2</sup>'' is equivalent to an infinite mass. Note that, in the modern view, a cannonball which cannot be deflected and a wall which cannot be knocked down are both types of the same (impossible) object: an object with infinite inertia. | ||
| ==Pop culture== | |||
| The omnipotence paradox has infiltrated ]. A reference to the irresistible force paradox has been made in a ] episode (Trust doesn't Rust) where the paradox is wrongly attributed to ] and its meaning is intentionally distorted. | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 15:35, 12 October 2005
The Irresistible force paradox is a classic paradox formulated as follows:
- What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
Common responses to this paradox resort to logic and semantics.
- Logic: if such a thing as an irresistible force exists, then no object is immovable, and vice versa. It is logically impossible to have these two entities (a force that cannot be resisted and an object that cannot be moved by any force) in the same universe.
- Semantics: if there is such a thing as an irresistible force, then the phrase immovable object is meaningless in that context, and vice versa, and the issue amounts to the same thing as asking, e.g., for a triangle that has four sides.
This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, but that paradox is most often discussed in the context of God's omnipotence (Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?).
The paradox should be understood as an exercise in logic, not as the postulation of a possible reality. According to modern scientific understanding, there are not and indeed cannot be either irresistible forces or immovable objects. An immovable object would have to have infinite inertia and therefore infinite mass. Such an object would collapse under its own gravity and create a singularity. An irresistible force would imply an infinite energy, which by Albert Einstein's equation E = mc is equivalent to an infinite mass. Note that, in the modern view, a cannonball which cannot be deflected and a wall which cannot be knocked down are both types of the same (impossible) object: an object with infinite inertia.
Pop culture
The omnipotence paradox has infiltrated popular culture. A reference to the irresistible force paradox has been made in a Knight Rider episode (Trust doesn't Rust) where the paradox is wrongly attributed to Zeno of Elea and its meaning is intentionally distorted.
Category: