| Revision as of 01:07, 21 May 2009 editWuhwuzdat (talk | contribs)56,587 editsm Reverted 1 edit by The Joker Returns 10 identified as vandalism to last revision by ManaCorp. using TW← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:42, 21 May 2009 edit undoHA HA HA HA! (talk | contribs)8 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :''What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?'' | :''What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?'' | ||
| *''']:''' ] is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. | |||
| *''']:''' if such a thing as an irresistible force exists, then no object is immovable, and vice versa. It is logically ] to have these two ] (a force that cannot be resisted and an object that cannot be moved by any force) in the same ]. | |||
| *''']:''' 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, for example, asking for a triangle that has four sides. | *''']:''' 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, for example, asking for a triangle that has four sides. | ||
Revision as of 01:42, 21 May 2009
The Irresistible force paradox, also the unstoppable force paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as follows:
- What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
- 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, for example, asking 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 it cannot be lifted, not even by God Himself?").
The paradox should be understood as an exercise in logic, not as the postulation of a possible reality. According to modern scientific understanding, no force is completely irresistible, and there are no immovable objects and cannot be any, as even a minuscule force will cause a slight acceleration on an object of any mass. An immovable object would have to have an inertia that was infinite, and therefore infinite mass. Such an object would collapse under its own gravity and create a singularity. An unstoppable force would require infinite energy, which does not exist in a finite universe.
An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for paradox (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; lit. 'Spear-Shield'). This term originates from a story (see the Kanbun example) 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), or "self-contradictory."
During the broadcast of WrestleMania III in 1987, commentator Gorilla Monsoon associates the paradox with the matchup of Andre the Giant and Hulk Hogan, in what would eventually become one of the most famous moments (and quotes) in professional wrestling history.
References
- Han Feizei (韓非子), chapter 36, Nanyi (難一 "Collection of Difficulties, No. 1")'.