Ask Me Help Desk - Does this time paradox make sense?

The paradox of the Immovable object, and the unstoppable is concluded with: " Only the object or the force can exist, not both"
After studying time philosophy here's what I've concluded: " Only the Question or Absence of Knowledge can exist, not the answer. Since the origin of time cannot be found, neither can the origin of matter, and energy, If the answer existed, then the Absence could not, and we'd have an absolute answer." Does this make sense to you? If the concept is a little fuzzy, point it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmeunknown

The paradox of the Immovable object, and the unstoppable is concluded with: " Only the object or the force can exist, not both"
After studying time philosophy here's what I've concluded: " Only the Question or Absence of Knowledge can exist, not the answer. Since the origin of time cannot be found, neither can the origin of matter, and energy, If the answer existed, then the Absence could not, and we'd have an absolute answer." Does this make sense to you? If the concept is a little fuzzy, point it out.

Hi again tmeunknown,

Some good ideas here- Let's look at some.

In science I don't think there are such things as 'irresistible' force and 'immovable' objects. It is a paradox because the two concepts cannot go together, they are contradictory. I think these things are more logical considerations rather than real possibilities. Having said that this doesn't mean they are not worth considering. If we are talking about 'irresistible force' and ' immovable objects' we are more than likely talking about infinities. Mathematics talks about infinities but the question we need to ask is,' Are these concepts relevant to the physical world?"- an important question that needs to be answered.

The question of 'time' is very difficult because it is poorly understood in philosophy. By this I mean there are a number of competing theories which contradict each other. If you want to look at time being infinite( this seems to fit in with the paradox) then I guess there is a possibility that 'solving' the infinity problem may produce some type of 'absolute answer' to space time and matter. On the other hand, it may be of no help at all.

You might like to consider this..

In there has always been a problem with infinities in science. That is to say, when physics examines matter at very tiny distances the laws of physics breaks down. Physics talks about , point particles in terms of infinities. This unsatisfactory situation may have been solved with the advent of string theory. Basically string theory does away with the problem of infinities.

Regards

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmeunknown

The paradox of the Immovable object, and the unstoppable is concluded with: " Only the object or the force can exist, not both"
After studying time philosophy here's what I've concluded: " Only the Question or Absence of Knowledge can exist, not the answer. Since the origin of time cannot be found, neither can the origin of matter, and energy, If the answer existed, then the Absence could not, and we'd have an absolute answer." Does this make sense to you? If the concept is a little fuzzy, point it out.

Only question or absence of knowledge can exist, not the answer, is a statement, not a paradox, the paradox is that both can not happen at the same time. If you have complete knowledge then there is no need for an answer or will not be a question, since all knowledge is complete. So the paradox is how both can exist.

One without the other is a statement,

For an object to be turly immovable it would need infinate inertia, and therefore infiniate mass. This would cause it to collapse under it's own gravity and create a singularity.
An unstoppable force would need infinate energy. This does not exist within this universe.

Therefore this paradox is about one impossible thing meeting another impossible thing.
The established answer is of course that both cannot exist together, but really neither can exist at all.

A close approximation would be an almost unstoppable force, which harnesses all the available energy in the cosmos, meeting an almost immovable force which would still collapse under it's own gravity. As the big bang was a singularity, perhaps this would herald the simultaneous destruction and re-creation of the universe.

;)

Quote:

The paradox of the Immovable object, and the unstoppable is concluded with: " Only the object or the force can exist, not both"

That is in fact the correct answer, and it is an apriori truth. For when we examine the term 'Immovable object', we see that it is contradictory to the term "Unstoppable force"; and this means that it would be a logical contradiction to say that both of these entities existed. If we unpack the term 'immovable object', we may say that it is 'an object which cannot be moved by any existent or possible force'; and if we unpack the term 'unstoppable force', we may say that it is 'a force capable of moving any existent or possible object'. There the contradiction becomes plain.

It should be noted that in logic we do not deal with scientific realities, but only imaginable possibilities. We are interested only in statements and whether they are logically consistent; when we speak of 'possibility' in logic, we only mean 'imaginable'. It is possible to imagine an unstoppable force; it is also possible to imagine an immovable object; it is not possible to imagine both these things co-existing.