Irresistible force paradox
The irresistible force paradox, also called the unstoppable force paradox or shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, which is a simple demonstration that challenges omnipotence: "Can God create a stone so heavy that not even God is strong enough to lift it?" The immovable object and the irresistible force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two separate entities.
The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as irresistible forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an irresistible force it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.
An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally: "Spear-Shield"). This term originates from a story (see the Kanbun example) in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾), or "self-contradictory". Another ancient and mythological example illustrating this theme can be found in the story of the Teumessian fox, who can never be caught, and the hound Laelaps, who never misses what it hunts. Realizing the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars.
The problems associated with this paradox can be applied to any other conflict between two abstractly defined extremes that are opposite.
One of the answers generated by seeming paradoxes like these is that there is no contradiction - that there is a false dilemma. Dr. Christopher Kaczor suggested that the need to change indicates a lack of power rather than the possession thereof, and as such a person who was omniscient would never need to change their mind- not changing the future would be consistent with omniscience rather than contradicting it.
In the same way, an irresistible force, an object or force with infinite inertia, would be consistent with the definition of an immovable object, in that they would be one and the same. Any object whose momentum or motion cannot be changed is an immovable object, and it would halt any object that moved relative to it, making it an irresistible force.
- Mike Alder (2004). "Newton's Flaming Laser Sword". Philosophy Now. 46: 29–33.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- Han Feizi (韓非子), chapter 36, Nanyi (難一 "Collection of Difficulties, No. 1")'.
- Kaczor, Christopher (2009). This Rock, 20(3).