"What happens if an unstoppable force meets an immoveable object?"
We all know the question, and most of us actually know the answer, or rather the lack there of one. Tonight after coming off the phone, the words suddenly just came to me. I wasn't exactly sure why at the time though, but the question itself was for the first time interpreted very differently by me. I began to think of it in relation to two people, one being the unstoppable force and the other the immovable object. So what happens then, when you look at it from this perspective? This is exactly what I hoped to find some sort of resolution to, but in order to do that I wanted to make sure that I really understood the original question itself. You see personally I like to understand the origin of things, because to me you can't put a new spin on something, if you don't know how to came to be in the first place.
I took to google in the hopes of finding some form of guidance, answer, anything? So I searched the above mentioned question, and ofcourse with google a million results came up. Most of the time I tend to go for the first result on a page, but this time around the second one just kind of attracted me to it more, i have yet to regret that decision. The italic text posted below has been directly quoted from that site.
"If an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, what happens?
Isaac Asimov answered this question rather neatly, I thought. I can't remember in which of his many books I read it (it was a long time ago), but the gist of his argument was this: A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both.
This was my first introduction to philosophy. It was also my first introduction to the notion that ideas which are actually incoherent, when analysed, can nevertheless be extremely useful metaphors. I can think of no better way to describe some encounters between two-year-olds and their mothers, for example.----The correct set-up would be "What would happen if an immovable object were confronted with an unstoppable force." We will have to further define out unstoppable force as having infinite momemtum (right?) and the immovable object having infinite inertia (right.) Therefore, our unstoppable force would have an infinite energy (measure this in joules/calories/whatever) and the unstoppable force would be able to absorb infinite energy.
There would be an endless transfer of energy.
The two would appear as if they are resting, but are actually transferring their infinite energies from one to the other. Equilibrium or a relation would never be established since we're dealing in the infinite regarding energy."
Normally at this hour of the night I would read that and my brain would not process anything, but I was after all on a mission, and it was one that i had put myself on. So to this question I am now ready to add my own interpretation.
If I, an immoveable object, are confronted by you, an unstoppable/irresitable force, when we we meet/confront/come together... the result would be an endless transfer of energy. To me this makes perfect sense. What are human beings but their own forms of immoveable objects and unstoppable forces, we all have our own beliefs, own ways of doing things. Our beliefs and ways which are often unchanged by the influence of others. For the most part when we all meet our energies transfer, intermingle, and co-exist infinitely.
It's late and I should be in bed, but this was floating around in my head, and I decided to share.
Night Folks!
Much Love • Much Light
They said what now?
