NationStates Jolt Archive

Who wins? :D

Who wins? The Juggernaut, or the Blob?

I go with the unstoppable force, because it will just go by the immobable object because it can't be stopped.

And the Juggernaut beats the Blob 9 times out of 10. Cause the Blob sucks.

Undeniable spam wins.

Neither. It's a logical contradiction. Either the immovable object is not, in fact, immovable, or the unstoppable force is not, in fact, unstoppable.

Note: Sorry. Alumnus member of my old college's Philosophy Club. Dissassembling the Omnipotence Paradox was a favorite past-time of ours.

Neither. It's a logical contradiction. Either the immovable object is not, in fact, immovable, or the unstoppable force is not, in fact, unstoppable.

Note: Sorry. Alumnus member of my old college's Philosophy Club. Dissassembling the Omnipotence Paradox was a favorite past-time of ours.
Why does it have to be either/or? Couldn't they both be false?

Sorry if it's a retarded question...

Who wins? :D

Atheists, as God dies.

They could both be true, I suppose, as long as it wasn't possible for them to interact...

Neither. It's a logical contradiction. Either the immovable object is not, in fact, immovable, or the unstoppable force is not, in fact, unstoppable.

Note: Sorry. Alumnus member of my old college's Philosophy Club. Dissassembling the Omnipotence Paradox was a favorite past-time of ours.
No need to apologise; you're right.

The two can't both exist in the same universe unless their characteristics are contingent. It's much the same as the proof God isn't omnipotent. You can't prove that God isn't omnipotent, but you can prove that God isn't necessarily omnipotent.

Why does it have to be either/or? Couldn't they both be false?

Sorry if it's a retarded question...

They could. And it's not a retarded question.

It's the philosophical question of "Can God, in his omnipotence, create an object that even he cannot lift?" The answer is, no, he can't, because even God, in our conception of him, must be constrained by the limitations of logic. Or at least, this was the concensus we reached.

People are making the assumption that the unstoppable force has to be a physical force that can potentially be stopped by the immovable object. Why can't the unstoppable force simply pass through the immovable object, thus making both claims true?

Who wins? :D

Neither; the unstoppable force goes slower and slower but never stops. (Hooray fractals!)

If not fractals, then the force would bounce off, never reaching speed zero because its deceleration would represent a y=mx^-1 formula

They could. And it's not a retarded question.

It's the philosophical question of "Can God, in his omnipotence, create an object that even he cannot lift?" The answer is, no, he can't, because even God, in our conception of him, must be constrained by the limitations of logic. Or at least, this was the concensus we reached.
OK, so apparently philosophy teaches mind-reading now...:eek:

I vote object because I am one.

immoveable force would break... it wouldn't be moved but it never said anything about it being indestructable.

Neither wins. They fight against each other forever.

Neither; the unstoppable force goes slower and slower but never stops. (Hooray fractals!)

Mmm, graphs of x^-1.

Closer, closer, cloooossseeerrrrr, . . . .:D

The immovable object, because the unstoppable force is worthless if applied in the wrong direction.

The Force (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/The_force), of course.

It's a contradiction: Both would break.

(Thank you, Trigun!)

The Force (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/The_force), of course.

Wookieepedia? Why wasn't I informed of this? :eek:

It doesn't much matter if the pitcher hits the rock or the rock hits the pitcher: the pitcher's going to suffer.

Neither. The unstoppable force just pushes against the unmoving object forever and ever and ever.

It causes a rip in the space time continuum and fabric of reality, sucking NS and all it's posters into an alternate dimension where Lunatic Goofballs is god.

Alternate?

Except that in that case the force as been stopped.

No. A force does not stop existing simply because it has stopped moving.

For example, do a push-up/press-up. Just because your hands aren't going through the floor doesn't mean they're not applying force to the floor.

Neither. The unstoppable force just pushes against the unmoving object forever and ever and ever.

Except that in that case the force as been stopped.

It causes a rip in the space time continuum and fabric of reality, sucking NS and all it's posters into an alternate dimension where Lunatic Goofballs is god.

It causes a rip in the space time continuum and fabric of reality, sucking NS and all it's posters into an alternate dimension where Lunatic Goofballs is god.

Wait... that's an alternate dimension?

The immovable object wins. Let me explain.

First, we postulate that the object cannot be moved (or destroyed) ever, and the force cannot be stopped. Also the two are on an unavoidable collision course, and they're bound to interact.

Now, if the force wins, that would require the object to be moved or destroyed. As we see from above, that is impossible, and thus the force cannot win.

If the object wins, the force is either stopped or redirected. Although the first case is impossible, the direction of the force hasn't been determined as constant, and therefore it is possible for it to be reflected from the object into a direction determined by the object's shape and the force's angle and point of impact. The object remains on its original course (sitting still), whereas the force is redirected.

The object wins, QED.

Wait... that's an alternate dimension?

A more pro-active god. WMDs would be ballistic mud missiles and there'd be wedgie grenades.

The immovable object wins. Let me explain.

First, we postulate that the object cannot be moved (or destroyed) ever, and the force cannot be stopped. Also the two are on an unavoidable collision course, and they're bound to interact.

Now, if the force wins, that would require the object to be moved or destroyed. As we see from above, that is impossible, and thus the force cannot win.

If the object wins, the force is either stopped or redirected. Although the first case is impossible, the direction of the force hasn't been determined as constant, and therefore it is possible for it to be reflected from the object into a direction determined by the object's shape and the force's angle and point of impact. The object remains on its original course (sitting still), whereas the force is redirected.

The object wins, QED.

By Jove, he's right!! Gadzooks!

No. A force does not stop existing simply because it has stopped moving.

For example, do a push-up/press-up. Just because your hands aren't going through the floor doesn't mean they're not applying force to the floor.

You completely missed the point. I walk into a wall. I cannot go through the wall, and cannot therefore go any further, no matter how hard I push against the wall. I have been stopped.

The immovable object wins. Let me explain.

First, we postulate that the object cannot be moved (or destroyed) ever, and the force cannot be stopped. Also the two are on an unavoidable collision course, and they're bound to interact.

Now, if the force wins, that would require the object to be moved or destroyed. As we see from above, that is impossible, and thus the force cannot win.

If the object wins, the force is either stopped or redirected. Although the first case is impossible, the direction of the force hasn't been determined as constant, and therefore it is possible for it to be reflected from the object into a direction determined by the object's shape and the force's angle and point of impact. The object remains on its original course (sitting still), whereas the force is redirected.

The object wins, QED.

*nods*
I was going to say something along those lines, except not as nice sounding.

An unstoppable force could keep going without moving the object.

They could. And it's not a retarded question.

It's the philosophical question of "Can God, in his omnipotence, create an object that even he cannot lift?" The answer is, no, he can't, because even God, in our conception of him, must be constrained by the limitations of logic. Or at least, this was the concensus we reached.

I would argue that God can, what God could not do is create an object that even he cannot lift and afterward still be truly omnipotent in the purest sense of the word.

you got one part of the annomoly wrong its not unstoppable force its irresistable force.

Which came first, the conundrum or the paradox?
And where's the Myrth option on the poll?

This is foolishness. Learn some basic dynamics. ANY force, no matter how strong or weak it is, will move ANY object if that force is the only force applied. Newton's Second Law states that acceleration is caused by a non-zero net force. There's no such thing as an "immovable object."

What you mean when you say "immovable" is that there is an additional force on the object that acts in the opposite direction to keep it at rest in response (the force of static friction). In that case, the question of which one "winning" is simply a measurement of the coefficient of the static friction. If the force is greater than the maximum frictional force, the object moves. If it is less than or equal to it, it doesn't. QED.

Really, a few minutes on wikipedia could have saved you a thread.

This is foolishness. Learn some basic dynamics. ANY force, no matter how strong or weak it is, will move ANY object if that force is the only force applied. Newton's Second Law states that acceleration is caused by a non-zero net force. There's no such thing as an "immovable object."

What you mean when you say "immovable" is that there is an additional force on the object that acts in the opposite direction to keep it at rest in response (the force of static friction). In that case, the question of which one "winning" is simply a measurement of the coefficient of the static friction. If the force is greater than the maximum frictional force, the object moves. If it is less than or equal to it, it doesn't. QED.

Really, a few minutes on wikipedia could have saved you a thread.

Let's not forget that acceleration is also affected by the object's mass as well as the force. Newton's second law in its most simple form:

F = ma (1)

From which we get:

a = F/m (2)

Where F is the net force, m is the object's mass, and a is its acceleration. As we can see from equation (2), if the mass is infinite, acceleration will always be zero with any finite amount of force.

Now, the original question suggests the force to be infinite also. Sadly, infinity divided by itself is indeterminate[1], and thus there is no mathematical either/or-answer to this problem. In any case, there is no need to assume friction anywhere. QED.

Sources:
[1]Wikipedia: Mathematical infinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Mathematical_infinity)

This is foolishness. Learn some basic dynamics. ANY force, no matter how strong or weak it is, will move ANY object if that force is the only force applied. Newton's Second Law states that acceleration is caused by a non-zero net force. There's no such thing as an "immovable object."

What you mean when you say "immovable" is that there is an additional force on the object that acts in the opposite direction to keep it at rest in response (the force of static friction). In that case, the question of which one "winning" is simply a measurement of the coefficient of the static friction. If the force is greater than the maximum frictional force, the object moves. If it is less than or equal to it, it doesn't. QED.

Really, a few minutes on wikipedia could have saved you a thread.

One can hypothetically imagine an object of infinite mass, countered by a force of infinite magnitude in a specific direction. F = ma. You solve for a and come to a = infinity / infinity. This is an indeterminate value that cannot be mathematically solved for without further information (like an equation for force and mass that come to infinity but are differentiable).

Now, you could try countering that an infinite mass of infinite force are impossible. Which is great, because that really is the literal answer to the OP: the question is flawed in principle because the implied definitions of immovable object and irresistible force are in logical contradiction with one another, and thus cannot both exist at once (unless you redefine force, as some people have done here when they claim the force just "goes through" -- which seems to me to imply a very deep-seeted misunderstanding of physics. That or that they assumed the OP used force in a way that was not supposed to be interpreted scientifically -- thus closing off one potential avenue for answers).

Also, an infinite mass would wreak holy havoc on the time-space continuum. An infinite force could hypothetically accelerate mass all the way to the speed of light (not just really really close, actually the speed of light).

EDIT: Oh, great, China Phenomenon beats me to it.

The cows.

"Unstoppable" force only means that it cannot be halted, not that it cannot be diverted. I guess that a good compromis would be the force flowing around the inamovable object.

It's called politics.

neither.
everyone looses.
at least in the current most visible example of the unstopable force of monetary fueled hierarchism vs the immovable object of nature's diversity upon which all life, including our own, ultimately depends.

i should also add that the only way to stop this unstoppable force is not to confrontationaly oppose it, but rather to completely boycott in any manor supporting it. especialy by the avoidance of aggressiveness and of the romantacizing and rewarding of aggressiveness. and by not creating a market for it. and the way to avoid contributing to creating a market for it is to avoid causing suffering and harm, and avoid creating a market for them either.

=^^=
.../\...

They could. And it's not a retarded question.

It's the philosophical question of "Can God, in his omnipotence, create an object that even he cannot lift?" The answer is, no, he can't, because even God, in our conception of him, must be constrained by the limitations of logic. Or at least, this was the concensus we reached.

Ahhh but does God follow the laws of logic?
If he is all things, is he not also Lucifer? And if he is Lucifer, does this mean that when Lucifer acted out against God it was merely God attacking himself? If God is all men and animals, then didn't God kill himself on the cross to purify himself of his own sins? Seriously. God is one fucked up little crazy person.

Also, God is the worlds strongest man. He can even lift himself. You try that once. God can lift gravity.

God only has one equal: Chuck fucking Norris.

The unstoppable force just keeps going, and the immovable object stays immovable. It helps if you think of the immovable object as a big majigger of gas or something. It's not immovable because it's really really big or anything, it's immovable because force can't act on it.

They could. And it's not a retarded question.

It's the philosophical question of "Can God, in his omnipotence, create an object that even he cannot lift?" The answer is, no, he can't, because even God, in our conception of him, must be constrained by the limitations of logic. Or at least, this was the concensus we reached.

Or he could because God transends the limits of logic. Which is after all just a man made methoed of thought to obtain understanding.

Neither. It's a logical contradiction. Either the immovable object is not, in fact, immovable, or the unstoppable force is not, in fact, unstoppable.

Note: Sorry. Alumnus member of my old college's Philosophy Club. Dissassembling the Omnipotence Paradox was a favorite past-time of ours.

You mean you don't get an immovable object with a hole in it?

I would argue that God can, what God could not do is create an object that even he cannot lift and afterward still be truly omnipotent in the purest sense of the word.

How? He can't lift/move the object he made. His power has therefore been limited by his own actions.

the unstopable force. i don't understand how something can be immovable since it depends on from where you look at it.

the unstopable force. i don't understand how something can be immovable since it depends on from where you look at it.

How does it depend on where you look at it?

Who wins? :DSanta Claus and Bigfoot.

Immovable wins. Why? Because no one said you can't redirect or turn aside the unstopable force. Aikido anyone?

Immovable wins. Why? Because no one said you can't redirect or turn aside the unstopable force. Aikido anyone?

How is that a win for immovable? It stays where it is and unstoppable force continues to be unstoppable. Draw I say.

How is that a win for immovable? It stays where it is and unstoppable force continues to be unstoppable. Draw I say.Well the Immovable remains unchanged, whereas the unstoppable, whilst not stopped, has been changed.

Their both true. The Irresistable force will just rebound off the unmovable object and both will continue on their way. No one ever stated an unstopable couldn't be redirected.

Well the Immovable remains unchanged, whereas the unstoppable, whilst not stopped, has been changed.

Fair enough. IM-1 UN-0

Although the first case is impossible, the direction of the force hasn't been determined as constant, and therefore it is possible for it to be reflected from the object into a direction determined by the object's shape and the force's angle and point of impact. The object remains on its original course (sitting still), whereas the force is redirected.

The object wins, QED.

I think the phrase is actually Irresistable force, isn't it? So if its irresistable, how can it be deflected, thus making it resistable by the object :confused:

or am i over-complicating things :p

well, the walls of my house might be immovable to me when i'm in my house, but they move for someone who is in a car riding past my house.
or am i wrong?

You're thinking frame of reference. The problem is that in your example, while it appears to be moving, you, in fact, are the one that is moving.

well, the walls of my house might be immovable to me when i'm in my house, but they move for someone who is in a car riding past my house.
or am i wrong?

You are wrong. They'd move if the car crashed into them, but not when it's driving by. I think you have immovable mixed up with not moving.

How does it depend on where you look at it?

well, the walls of my house might be immovable to me when i'm in my house, but they move for someone who is in a car riding past my house.
or am i wrong?

You are wrong. They'd move if the car crashed into them, but not when it's driving by. I think you have immovable mixed up with not moving.

probably. isn't this one a little bit like that omnipotent paradox?

Neither wins. They fight against each other forever.


they couldnt fight each other forever, in order to do so they would have to lock into combat and thus would stop the unstoppable

You're thinking frame of reference. The problem is that in your example, while it appears to be moving, you, in fact, are the one that is moving.

yeah, it would be logical that i'm the one doing the moving, but why is this logical? is there 1 reference point wich never moves? because otherwise you could choose wichever point you'd want, couldn't you?

I think the phrase is actually Irresistable force, isn't it? So if its irresistable, how can it be deflected, thus making it resistable by the object :confused:

or am i over-complicating things :p

You're right. I wasn't aware that the force should also be irresistible, but if it is, it can't be deflected. Still, I'm right as far as the thread's original question is concerned.

In any case, I'm going to stick with the object.

Both win. Force moves through object, like electricity through silver.

How? He can't lift/move the object he made. His power has therefore been limited by his own actions.

Correction: He can, He just doesn't want to. :p

As for the question: Assuming an object to be totally immovable requires that its mass be infinite, as it has infinite inertia (which is, wait for it, a force). Therefore, if it were subject to another infinite force, several things could happen:

- The force could be an outside force acting upon the object, and thus work against inertia. As a result, the object would be incapable of existence, since infinite force applied from both directions comes out undefined.

- The force could be another inertial force, in which case the object would still not move, since infinity plus infinity is still infinity.

Anyway, all this treats infinity as a number, which it isn't. So the question is not a valid one. But I'm nitpicking now.


.... I can't believe I just wasted 5 minutes of my life writing that.... wait, I roleplay... so I can.

Apple pies.

well. If the two are the following

Immovable Object = Andre the Giant
Unstoppable Force = Hulk Hogan



Then Hogan wins....

well. If the two are the following

Immovable Object = Andre the Giant
Unstoppable Force = Hulk Hogan



Then Hogan wins....

No, no, no....

by your scenario, The Giant was a part of the unstoppable force by assisting the Hogan to win. If Hogan was opposed in that match Hogan would have lost ;)

The unstoppable force wins. It may not be able to move the immovable object, but could move the rest of the universe around it, therefore creating the impression that the immovable object has indeed, moved. :D

Doesn't state what kind of force. For all we know, the force could pass through the object, thereby being unstoppable while still not moving the unmoveable object.

Also it doesn't state what matter the immoveable object is made out of, e.g. if the object was made of exotic particles, Higgs boson, graviton, photons, anti-matter and other such things

They could. And it's not a retarded question.

It's the philosophical question of "Can God, in his omnipotence, create an object that even he cannot lift?" The answer is, no, he can't, because even God, in our conception of him, must be constrained by the limitations of logic. Or at least, this was the concensus we reached.

God could, theoretically limit his own power to where he could, temporarily, be unable to lift a heavy rock. If he's omnipotent, that is.

Also, to the OP's question:

It depends on what makes the immovable object immovable. If it's weight, then it can be chipped down to be lighter, or, entirely destroyed or blown through by the unstoppable force.

Another situation could be where the unstoppable force is incredibly small, say, the size of a quark - it would pass through all matter without moving anything.

unstoppable force - it could just go straight on through.

Doesn't state what kind of force. For all we know, the force could pass through the object, thereby being unstoppable while still not moving the unmoveable object.

And what kind of force would that be, pray tell?

( :rolleyes: at the dearth of basic physics espoused in this thread )

And what kind of force would that be, pray tell?

( :rolleyes: at the dearth of basic physics espoused in this thread )

Could be quarks, like I suggested.

Or, considering it's just a force and not a thing, it could be lightning or wind.

How? He can't lift/move the object he made. His power has therefore been limited by his own actions.

That is exactly my point. He can do it. Now he's limited by his own actions, and therefore, not TRULY omnipotent anymore. But pretty damn close. Now he can do absolutely anything except lift the rock.

Who wins? :D

neither.

the unstoppable in the unstoppable force does not mean it can't be diverted. Thus the Immovable object remains immovable, and the unstoppable force isn't stopped.

Could be quarks, like I suggested.

Or, considering it's just a force and not a thing, it could be lightning or wind.
Lightning = electricity. Electricity may or may not pass through an immovable object, depending on what that object is made of.

Wind = moving air, thus matter, rather than a force. By pushing against the immovable object it creates a force, but unless the immovable object is porous, the wind cannot pass through the object.

As for quarks, again, that's matter, not a force. A stream of directed quarks might be able to pass through an immovable object, or it might not, depending (again) on what the object is made of.

Please slap me if I'm overanalysing again.

...as it has infinite inertia (which is, wait for it, a force).

No it isn't.

I agree with the rest of your analysis, but it just plainly isn't, unless we allow ourselves to radically redefine force at will. In which case, for particular definitions of "force" there are different answers.

Or he could because God transends the limits of logic. Which is after all just a man made methoed of thought to obtain understanding.

Logic isn't a limitation in that sense. It's more of the fact that we can say, in natural language, meaningless things. Things like "immovable object".

What is meant by "God cannot transcend logic" is that when we tell him to make a chair that is not a chair, we are just making meaningless noises with our mouths and vocal cords. Your statement is illogical, and God can't do it precisely because you haven't said anything actually.

God also cannot make himself not make himself perform the action I am describing in this sentence. And the reason is because I have constructed the sentence specifically to be meaningless.

neither.

the unstoppable in the unstoppable force does not mean it can't be diverted. Thus the Immovable object remains immovable, and the unstoppable force isn't stopped.

Yes but to be truly unstoppable, it's always best to consider it undivertable as well. It's arguable, I admit, but when I consider something unstoppable, I have to imagine the thing intends on going somewhere, or in a specific direction, and cannot be denied no matter what. Otherwise, in my mind, it's not truly unstoppable.

Lightning = electricity. Electricity may or may not pass through an immovable object, depending on what that object is made of.

Wind = moving air, thus matter, rather than a force. By pushing against the immovable object it creates a force, but unless the immovable object is porous, the wind cannot pass through the object.

As for quarks, again, that's matter, not a force. A stream of directed quarks might be able to pass through an immovable object, or it might not, depending (again) on what the object is made of.

Please slap me if I'm overanalysing again.

*slap*

There's force creating the wind and electricity, and such a force is then transferred into the wind and electricity itself to give it action. My fist plowing through the air has been given force through my strength, therefore my fist has force behind it - if that force is unstoppable, therefore, so is my fist.

No it isn't.

I agree with the rest of your analysis, but it just plainly isn't, unless we allow ourselves to radically redefine force at will. In which case, for particular definitions of "force" there are different answers.
Hang on.... isn't inertia the force an object exerts in resistance to any other force applied to it? In other words, when a force is applied to an object, the inertia of the object has to be subtracted from the force applied? ... now I'm confusing myself again. <.< >.>

*slap*

There's force creating the wind and electricity, and such a force is then transferred into the wind and electricity itself to give it action. My fist plowing through the air has been given force through my strength, therefore my fist has force behind it - if that force is unstoppable, therefore, so is my fist.
so wait.... an infinitely powerful wind would be able to pass right through an immovable object? I can see this happening if the immovable object were immovable due to its lack of solid structure, but with a solid immovable object (as most people seem to be assuming) it wouldn't work, as there aren't many atom-sized gaps to admit the wind through.

And, IIRC, there isn't a force creating electricity. Electricity is in and of itself a force (one manifestation of electromagnetism); it's better conducted by some materials than others, etc., but that gets us into electrochemistry anyway, which isn't the subject, dammit. ^>.<^

Yes but to be truly unstoppable, it's always best to consider it undivertable as well. It's arguable, I admit, but when I consider something unstoppable, I have to imagine the thing intends on going somewhere, or in a specific direction, and cannot be denied no matter what. Otherwise, in my mind, it's not truly unstoppable.

think of it in this manner. the unstoppable force is orbiting the immovable object. thus as long as the object doesn't move, it never interacts with the force. the OP doesn't specify that the two actually and physically meet. just who would win?

think of it in this manner. the unstoppable force is orbiting the immovable object. thus as long as the object doesn't move, it never interacts with the force. the OP doesn't specify that the two actually and physically meet. just who would win?

Well he said "vs", and unless the unstoppable and immovable are sentient towards eachother and therefore have a debate about who would win if they did collide, there's no way for them to be "versus" eachother unless they do, in fact, collide.

Well he said "vs", and unless the unstoppable and immovable are sentient towards eachother and therefore have a debate about who would win if they did collide, there's no way for them to be "versus" eachother unless they do, in fact, collide.

Vs only means a comparison. Mountain Vs Molehill doesn't mean you push two together and see who crumbles first.

It can be preference, or it can be value. not necessarily a physical confrontation.

The common question that is normally associated with the two is
"what would happen if the unstoppable force meets the immovalbe object?"

but a simple "who would win?" can mean anything. ;)

a race? then the unstoppable force wins.
a contest on remaining unchanged? then the Immovable object wins.

which do you like... that's up to you. :p

Hang on.... isn't inertia the force an object exerts in resistance to any other force applied to it? In other words, when a force is applied to an object, the inertia of the object has to be subtracted from the force applied? ... now I'm confusing myself again. <.< >.>


so wait.... an infinitely powerful wind would be able to pass right through an immovable object? I can see this happening if the immovable object were immovable due to its lack of solid structure, but with a solid immovable object (as most people seem to be assuming) it wouldn't work, as there aren't many atom-sized gaps to admit the wind through.

And, IIRC, there isn't a force creating electricity. Electricity is in and of itself a force (one manifestation of electromagnetism); it's better conducted by some materials than others, etc., but that gets us into electrochemistry anyway, which isn't the subject, dammit. ^>.<^

Bah, I must've worded it weirdly.

I meant wind could be the unstoppable force, but wouldn't necessarily have to go through it. With a large enough gust, parts of the wind could simply go around it while the whole of the wind was still going in the given direction.

Electricity could also either go around or go through such an object, even if it wasn't a conductor - even the strongest insulator can be thwarted if the charge is equally strong, namely, in a superbolt. The bolt would keep going through or pass around and continue.

Vs only means a comparison. Mountain Vs Molehill doesn't mean you push two together and see who crumbles first.

It can be preference, or it can be value. not necessarily a physical confrontation.

The common question that is normally associated with the two is
"what would happen if the unstoppable force meets the immovalbe object?"

but a simple "who would win?" can mean anything. ;)

a race? then the unstoppable force wins.
a contest on remaining unchanged? then the Immovable object wins.

which do you like... that's up to you. :p

Yes, I suppose that's true. But that's moreso a mistake on the OP's part of incorrectly phrasing the intended question rather than anything else.

Yes, I suppose that's true. But that's moreso a mistake on the OP's part of incorrectly phrasing the intended question rather than anything else.

or a miscommunication on the OP's Part. ;)

but taking it to mean the common question, I still say Neither. the Object would be destroyed and the force stopped.

Bah, I must've worded it weirdly.

I meant wind could be the unstoppable force, but wouldn't necessarily have to go through it. With a large enough gust, parts of the wind could simply go around it while the whole of the wind was still going in the given direction.

Electricity could also either go around or go through such an object, even if it wasn't a conductor - even the strongest insulator can be thwarted if the charge is equally strong, namely, in a superbolt. The bolt would keep going through or pass around and continue.

That makes more sense..... I think.

or a miscommunication on the OP's Part. ;)

but taking it to mean the common question, I still say Neither. the Object would be destroyed and the force stopped.

Or a negative star or black hole or supernova would occur.

Either one.

Or a negative star or black hole or supernova would occur.

Either one.

The answer I normally give is "the end of all things."

Unstoppable Force. The Object might be immovable, but whatever it's anchored or resting on isn't. Weakest link.

Who wins? :D

An object with infinite inertia being hit by an object with infinite kinetic energy? I don't know who wins, but I can tell you who loses.

Everyone else. Imagine an infinitely powerful explosion, and you'll see what I mean.

That is exactly my point. He can do it. Now he's limited by his own actions, and therefore, not TRULY omnipotent anymore. But pretty damn close. Now he can do absolutely anything except lift the rock.
Looking at that more broadly, if God is omnipotent then there is no thing God cannot do. Therefore, God can rob himself of his own omnipotence. As such, God's omnipotence is contingent on his not doing that.

Looking at that more broadly, if God is omnipotent then there is no thing God cannot do. Therefore, God can rob himself of his own omnipotence. As such, God's omnipotence is contingent on his not doing that.

Kinda like the UK's parliamentary supremacy. Parliament can make any law it chooses, but can it pass a law that not even it can overturn?

Unstoppable Force. The Object might be immovable, but whatever it's anchored or resting on isn't. Weakest link.

You assume it's resting on a planet rather than is immovable in space. We're giong on a lot of hypothetical 'ifs' here - one among them being that this object, be it in space or on land, is locked in it's position in the universe and nothing can move it from said position, regardless of whether the planet it's on has been destroyed or if a gravitational pull comes into contact with it.

Looking at that more broadly, if God is omnipotent then there is no thing God cannot do. Therefore, God can rob himself of his own omnipotence. As such, God's omnipotence is contingent on his not doing that.

That's basically what I said. He has the power to limit his own power for however long or however limited he feels it should be.

If you wanna get technical, then Jesus not being able to lift an object is a good example of this.

The answer I normally give is "the end of all things."

Or the beginning.

Which is where the "where'd the unstoppable and immovable come from, then?" discussion comes in, which leads us back to where we are, not knowing shit about the beginning of the universe. =)

maybe he was talking about http://www.thottbot.com/?i=40529 and http://www.thottbot.com/i19321 lol

Kinda like the UK's parliamentary supremacy. Parliament can make any law it chooses, but can it pass a law that not even it can overturn?
The legislature of British Columbia did that very thing (and I'm sure Neesika can spell this out in greater detail).

When the Nisga'a Treaty passed by the legislature, it included a clause that said it could not be overturned by future acts of the legislature.

That's basically what I said. He has the power to limit his own power for however long or however limited he feels it should be.

If you wanna get technical, then Jesus not being able to lift an object is a good example of this.
Yeah, I just think better in abstractions than specific examples.

Or the beginning.

Which is where the "where'd the unstoppable and immovable come from, then?" discussion comes in, which leads us back to where we are, not knowing shit about the beginning of the universe. =)

phsaw... simple.

the Universe started when the unmovable and unstoppable met.

The Universe will also end when the Unstoppable and Unmovable meet again.

One universe is born from the death of the other. each universe has an unstoppable and immovable that is destined to meet and to bring about the end and the beginning.


now... how deep down the rabbit hole can we take this?

phsaw... simple.

the Universe started when the unmovable and unstoppable met.

The Universe will also end when the Unstoppable and Unmovable meet again.

One universe is born from the death of the other. each universe has an unstoppable and immovable that is destined to meet and to bring about the end and the beginning.


now... how deep down the rabbit hole can we take this?

Pretty deep.

Where'd the unstoppable and unmoveable come from? :3

They could both be true, I suppose, as long as it wasn't possible for them to interact...
No. So long as they exist in the same universe it is logically impossible. If there exists a force that can move the object, it's no longer immovable, and if there exists an object that is immovable the force is no longer unstoppable. As far as I know it is impossible for a force to move through an object without moving it.

hmmm, theres no reason that the unstoppable force is stopped by an immovable object, it will just keep pushing against the object which will never move by virtue of its unstopability.

Pretty deep.

Where'd the unstoppable and unmoveable come from? :3

they're innate parts of the Universe. each... let's call em versions, of the Universe has their own Immovable Object and Unstoppable Force.

an exit code so to speak. that initiates a reboot when they meet.

they're innate parts of the Universe. each... let's call em versions, of the Universe has their own Immovable Object and Unstoppable Force.

an exit code so to speak. that initiates a reboot when they meet.

Okay, so they're parts of the universe. How do they get there before the universe is created? :3

*shrug* The momentum is transfered thru teh object.

Okay, so they're parts of the universe. How do they get there before the universe is created? :3

they're created when the universe is created. when they meet, the resulting release of energy is enough to cause the destruction of the old universe, and creates a new one. with that creation of the new universe, a new unstoppable force and Immovable object is created and let loose to once more, meet and complete the cycle.

they're created when the universe is created. when they meet, the resulting release of energy is enough to cause the destruction of the old universe, and creates a new one. with that creation of the new universe, a new unstoppable force and Immovable object is created and let loose to once more, meet and complete the cycle.

Right, they're created -when the universe is created-. How are they the elements of the creation of the universe if they don't get there until the universe is already created? :P

The unstoppable force does not have to be moving, thus the force could be continually acting on the immovable object without the object moving.

Right, they're created -when the universe is created-. How are they the elements of the creation of the universe if they don't get there until the universe is already created? :P

the energy released from their meeting destroys one universe and creates the new universe.

...maybe the object's inertia is the unstoppable force?

This is a trick question, as space is relative.

the energy released from their meeting destroys one universe and creates the new universe.

I just remembered this thread existed!


But the energy doesn't exist if they don't first create the universe so that they can exist within the universe and then destroy and recreate it by colliding!

So what creates the damned universe in the first place when those guys don't exist yet?! :P

Goddamn circular logic.

It's an unstoppable force. No-one said anything about it being indestructible. I shoot it with a nuke and it blows up first.

It's an unstoppable force. No-one said anything about it being indestructible. I shoot it with a nuke and it blows up first.

If it's unstoppable, that's to mean that you can't divert or halt it in any way. Meaning, you can't kill and/or destroy it either. Nothing can stop it.

Neither. It's a logical contradiction. Either the immovable object is not, in fact, immovable, or the unstoppable force is not, in fact, unstoppable.

Note: Sorry. Alumnus member of my old college's Philosophy Club. Dissassembling the Omnipotence Paradox was a favorite past-time of ours.

What he said!

I just remembered this thread existed!


But the energy doesn't exist if they don't first create the universe so that they can exist within the universe and then destroy and recreate it by colliding!

So what creates the damned universe in the first place when those guys don't exist yet?! :P

Goddamn circular logic.

the energy is from the destruction of the previous universe.

now if you are asking what created the very First Universe...

who knows. God... or it could be that the Very First Universe (VFU) comprised of only the Immovable and Unstoppable...

I think it's quite obvious.

Syntax error ;)

I think it's quite obvious.

Syntax error ;)

Universal BSOD

Universal BSOD

God damnit! Control Alt Delete, Control Alt Delete. Reboot the fucking thing already. Gawd!