| Revision as of 00:51, 9 January 2006 editBlaine Westwood (talk | contribs)1 editm →Pop culture← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:39, 9 January 2006 edit undoYoji Hajime (talk | contribs)254 editsNo 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?'' | ||
| Common responses to this paradox resort to logic and semantics. | In the orient, the word paradox (矛盾) is written as spear shield, a specific reference to this incompatible proposition. 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. | *'''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. | ||
Revision as of 14:39, 9 January 2006
The Irresistible force paradox is a classic paradox formulated as follows:
- What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
In the orient, the word paradox (矛盾) is written as spear shield, a specific reference to this incompatible proposition. 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 irresistible force 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.
This paradox was also popularized in the 1980s with reference to World Wrestling Federation nemeses Hulk Hogan (the irresistible force) and Andre the Giant (the immovable object).
Category: