an unstoppable force meets an immovable force

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, this has been a paradox everyone has been trying to decipher, the answer might be easier than you think.

Isaac had his own definition, that a universe where an unstoppable force exist, an immovable object can't exist and a universe where an immovable object exist, an unstoppable force doesn't exist.

I have a different answer though, I'm not Isaac nor am I as smart as him, but that doesn't mean my answer can't be taken in to consideration.

I believe when an unstoppable force meets an immovable force (see the difference), they switch properties.

Think about an unstoppable force, and an immovable force, what happen when they meet, and what happens when they switch properties, hence the unstoppable force become the immovable force and the immovable force become the unstoppable force.

I thought about this when I thought of the clash of civilization, West and Islam.

It seems Muslims are not willing to change (immovable force), Westerners are welling to advance, and have been for a long time now (unstoppable force). What happens when these two forces meet? They will switch characteristics.

Do you guys believes Muslims are gaining Western characteristics, and Westerners are gaining Muslim characteristics?

To give you an example, Westerners are becoming culturally frozen, for example white individuals from Britain claiming England belongs to white people and it has belonged to white people, therefore there is nothing wrong with keeping it that way (not willing to change). At the same time Muslims are protesting all across the Arab world for freedom etc.

You can see the switch in characteristics, as Muslims are accepting change now, but Westerners are not.

So is the solution to the paradox true? An unstoppable force meeting an immovable force would simply switch characteristics?

Its an interesting question posed............metaphysically i think they destroy each other........

But i cant condone you using the Philosophy and metaphysics section to espouse more political agenda on Islam and the US.............

Think of a pressure cooker. A seemingly unstoppable force, boiling water and steam, an unmoveable force, the lid that seals it shut. There is a little bit of steam that escapes. It creates energy greater than either could create on its own, and as soon as something shifts like you press the button to move the lid on the pressure cooker, all the engergy that has built up during that time erupts all at once more violently. SO I think its more of a 1+1=2 rather than eleminating each other.

I think they are the same property. The motion between the two is only relative; the immoveble object could as well be the unstoppeble force from the others perspective since both remain stationary in their own gravitational field.

So I think in a way you are right, but in stead of changing property the perspective changes.

But is it really relevant? Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it? Where does infinity begin? If there's no one to observe an event, does it still happen? etc.

peace

reply to post by P3ACE0WAR


um it is "irresistible force meets an immovable object"

reply to post by CaDreamer


Assuming that such things actually exist, then the unstoppable force will move through the immovable force.

reply to post by P3ACE0WAR


An interesting post and a great question, however I would seriously challenge the analogies you have used of 'westerners' and 'Muslims' since the definition of these terms and how each of these groups behave presents a string of unknown variables. Not all Muslims think alike and not all westerners think alike.

One could compare the question however to that old paradox about an omnipotent God. If God is all powerful, can he/it create an object so heavy that he cannot move it? If yes this would mean that God is not all-powerful as he would have created something he cannot move. If no, it would also mean God is not all-powerful as there is an action which he cannot perform. God in this case would represent the unstoppable force and the proposed infinitely heavy object would represent the immovable force. Who knows. Is it possible that the two cancel each other out i.e upon contact both would cease to exist? This would also fit the God analogy since an all-powerful God would be considered a sustainer of reality, by defying God's principles the rule of God would no longer apply i.e. if God's will doesn't exist neither will anything. Ahhh I'm just typing myself in circles now, getting lost in my brain. Thanks for making me think though. Star and Flag!

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by CaDreamer

 

Assuming that such things actually exist, then the unstoppable force will move through the immovable force.

If the unstoppable force takes the properties of the immovable force, then basically when they meet, the immovable force becomes the unstoppable force, therefore moves a long, and the unstoppable force becomes the immovable force, which stops.

If you think about the clash of civilization, this is exactly what is happening. Can anyone see it?

reply to post by P3ACE0WAR


Hmm, some good thinking here, was initially skeptical as an immovable force doesn't make intuitive sense in the physics realm, but your explanation is good and I can definitely see what you're getting at.

I still maintain that the Islamic world vs the western world is nothing more than a chess game being played at the moment, and that the chess pieces of both sides are equally unaware of their involvement.

Haven't you ever had that feeling where you return to a place that you grew up and it looks identical but is absolutely nothing like you remember it, the park that you used to play in blissful ignorance of it's surroundings now seems like a "dodgy place" but really all that has happened is that your perspective has shifted and "matured" so that you perceive it differently.

I think this is a similar situation to what the islamic "freedom fighters" are finding themselves in and equally applies to the masses that voted for Obama, believing he was going to bring about tangible change. They are fighting for what they believe will bring them freedom and their perceived plight is noble, but the men/women behind the curtain are manipulating their actions, employing subversive tactics involving media manipulation.

As I am sure we are all aware, the media is what shapes the world view of the majority of people, as many cannot afford decent education or have the ability to travel and experience the world first hand, they are perceiving the world through the biased and warped view of the media. Have you ever been to china? Most probably not, but what is your perceived image of it, an industrial country teeming with people? That is the image that has been indented onto my world view.

to conclude, the idea of trying to explain to an ant that the world is round is analogous of the majority of the world's population, living looking down, we are living an engineered existence, our consciousness is shaped by our experienced past, momentary present and perceived future, if you can control the way we view our past and tell us what we are to expect in the future, you can control our actions in the present.

stygmartyr

They attempted to answer that question when Andre the giant faced off against Kamala the ugandan giant.

reply to post by stygmartyrZA


I don't think there will be a clash of civilization, I think the Western world will become backward, and the Muslim world will move forward. This is just an analogy as you explain, but it is true. The properties will switch, that is the only explanation and it is true looking at the reality of things.

Regarding Obama, I don't think people voted for Obama to change the fundamental properties of the Western civilization, I don't think many can deny that. What Muslims are protesting for now is huge changes, unimaginable changes, call it evolution of revolution, I think the Muslim world is changing and inheriting Western properties, while the West is inheriting Muslim properties.

Look at Americans talking about what their ancestors would do etc, look them talking about the constitution which was written long long time ago, they can't seem to move forward. The same goes for Europeans.

I think if you look at it open minded, it does make sense.

Originally posted by P3ACE0WAR

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by CaDreamer

 

Assuming that such things actually exist, then the unstoppable force will move through the immovable force.

If the unstoppable force takes the properties of the immovable force, then basically when they meet, the immovable force becomes the unstoppable force, therefore moves a long, and the unstoppable force becomes the immovable force, which stops.

If you think about the clash of civilization, this is exactly what is happening. Can anyone see it?

Not really, mixing physics and global politics can get a bit messy.

Consider the sets of swing balls common on some desks. The unstoppable force is momentum, the immovable force is inertia. When you raise one of the balls and get the device swinging and clicking back and forth, the forces of inertia and momentum do not swap with each other, but pass through each other.

When it comes to the clash of civilisations it generally ends with a lot of dead bodies, broken cites and a few remaining rich banks and other bastards.

interesting but... its "immovable object" not "immovable force".

2nd

reply to post by kwakakev


I have my own personal belief, that all systems have commonalities. Meaning they are parallel, hence a biological system can be compared to a national system.

If you have a moment of thought on this you would realize what I mean. All systems have commonalities.

reply to post by P3ACE0WAR


Absolutely, I do agree with that statement. It can be a very good way to help grasp an understanding as there are many common principles through out all levels of life. There are also a lot of differences as well so just be careful in how you use it and do you homework to build a clearer understanding of the actual processes you are interested in.

reply to post by P3ACE0WAR


I'd just like to point out that you say "muslims are unwilling to change" and "muslims are adopting western characteristics." in the same post.

Muslim Vs. West is manufactured so that our crooked governments can continue to be crooked. The middle east doesn't like our foreign policy and int'l business practices. The media spins it into a fundamental religious conflict so that western politicians can't be blames and nothing behind the scenes has to change.

Arab revolutions are just that; Arab. Not Islamic. And no, those are not the same thing. To say that the mideast revolts happening now represent a sea change for Islam is premature at best. We don't know how this will all play out, but right now it looks like a political revolution against oppressive dictators. I don't see the people calling for religious reform, and I never heard Mubarak or Qaddafi claim to be the leader of the Muslim religion.

In short, the U.S. is not an unstoppable force, and the Muslim world is not an immovable object. They are disparate, loosely related, unorganized groups of people tossed arbitrarily into categories which make it easier for the MSM to paint in broad strokes, delivering no real information and yet filling over 12 hours a day with non stop drivel. "The Muslims" and "The West" don't exist. Not in the terms and concepts into which you are trying to shoe horn them, any way.

When two cultures "clash" it usually looks more like two different colored marshmallows melting together, creating one new color while maintaining bits of the original colors. One does not become the other, and I challenge you to study some history and try to find examples of when this has happened. Even when the culture clash leads to war there are always hold outs from the last culture mixed with those willing to accept the new one.

reply to post by RicoMarston


That's exactly my point, there are two understanding, "Muslims are unwilling to change", then there is "Muslims are willing to change", inheriting Western characteristics.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by P3ACE0WAR

 

Absolutely, I do agree with that statement. It can be a very good way to help grasp an understanding as there are many common principles through out all levels of life. There are also a lot of differences as well so just be careful in how you use it and do you homework to build a clearer understanding of the actual processes you are interested in.

Yes agreed, there are also a lot of differences, but there are a lot of differences in different biological species, the same goes for national species. Both systems have different versions (if you want to call it that) of the same system.

right iv been looking for the last 10 mins for a vid of one of those metal ball swing things lol because thats the best way to descirbe it lol i will keep looking

hear we go just skip it to 40 seconds

Impenetrability is the state where one object cannot occupy the same space as another object. This works for abstract concepts such as intellect and emotion. If the intellect is stronger than the emotion, then emotion cannot move past the space in the mind occupied by the stronger force of the intellect. If the emotion is stronger, then the intellect will be pushed aside. Buddha talked about equanimity. This is the ability to override the five senses to allow the intellect to rule.

I say this as an illustration. An unstoppable force and an immovable force are irrelevant. Impenetrability is the key with stronger or weaker forces. Equilibrium will ultimate come from a stronger force than either of the two weaker forces. Truth is the immovable force that all movable forces act around. For motion to occur, there must be a fixed object doing the moving. The fixed object is unchanging. God represents the prime mover. He has arrived and never left at the same time. Both of these forces you outline will merely fall in line with the one at rest.

reply to post by P3ACE0WAR