The question is simple... What would happen when an unstoppable force collided with an unmovable object? Will both be destroyed? Will nothing happen? Will the world explode?
what if matter cannot exist in some other universes altogether?
Multiverse is the idea that there are multiple universes so just go through them till you find one that has the right equations to be able for matter to exist.
Well, something very bad would happen Unfortunately its like a lot of other paradoxes, you don't really want to ever test it to find out. For instance, the time paradox, if you caused one of those than the entire space time continuum could be destroyed. Or you have the question of the existence of parallel universes, for instance every time someone makes a choice a different universe is formed in which that person made a different choice, thus creating an infinite number of parallel universes that are different in certain ways (That is a theory right?). They are all very complex and we may never fully understand any of this. But back on the original subject, I think that it might cause a tear in the space time continuum resulting in who knows what. And as someone else has already said, there is the whole multiverse concept
The multiverse theory doesn't hold out for the question.
The situation is as follows: 1) there is an immovable object 2) there is an unstoppable force 3) they hit each other
Logically, 1 or 2 has to be dropped because together they are a logical contradiction. No differing set of laws can alleviate a flaw in logic that is based on our concept of forces.
The closest solution is that there is a universe where logic does not apply, which therefore ensues that the universe in question follows no laws. The problem with that is, how can a universe that has no laws hold concepts such as 'unstoppable' and 'immovable'?
Actually, every universe's laws must play out so there are no paradoxes - otherwise the universe does not exist. Because this forms a paradox, such a universe that allows this cannot exist.
Oh I didn't know they already had constraints on what other universes can and can't have. I know it's unlikely but i'm still working the angle that it's impossible to know thus irrefutable at the present.
when we say "unstoppable" do we mean that it doesn't stop moving? or that it doesn't stop applying force in a certain direction? b/c if the unstoppable object were to meet the immovable object and stop moving but still be applying force to that object whilst that object doesn't move... then was it truly ever stopped?
By applying the question to an alternate universe, you are already adding constraints to that universe based on the question.
1) Forces accelerate objects: if forces do not accelerate an object in the alternate universe, it is not what we would call a force. 2) There is an immovable object: this is declared as an absolute. The alternate universe must have an object that cannot be moved, at all. 3) There is an unstoppable force: This is declared as another absolute. The alternate universe must have a force that cannot be stopped, at all. 4) The unstoppable force hits an immovable object: hitting/meeting is mutually exclusive to going through or anything but collision.
Also you are assuming that they have to be dropped when in theory in another universe they could both simultaneously exist.
As I stated, logic does not permit both to simultaneusly exist. Therefore a universe in which both simultaneusly exist must have no logic. Questions such as this are irrelevant in a universe with no logic.
Im thinking, you might say, "maybe the alternate universe has its own form of logic". But no, logic is our notion of following through what we know and what we can work out. Any other way of logic is no logic at all.
it's impossible to know thus irrefutable at the present
Questions work within constraints. Either these constraints are held and thus the question has no solution, or constraints are broken and the question becomes irrelevant for the situation.
I'm going to expand on my analogy of shapes. If I were to question the possibility of a shape that is both a square or a circle, our logic implies that an object can be either a square OR a circle. Applying the question to a parellel universe in order to circumvent our logic does not change the fact that you are circumventing our logic which is what the question is based on.
Your point make sense but your make alot of assumption on how energy works, matter, energy transfer. This question might not even have to be constrained to a whole universe itself it could be two universes interacting with one another of two more more membranes. Membranes themselves seem like they posses both qualities of the problem being both unstoppable and unmovable. It's clear that they do not follow the laws of our universe since when they collide they just rebound then come back together again. Entropy might not even affect them so this interaction could be infinite. You might as well say in a logical or a universe that follow similar laws as our own this is impossible. Because I don't see how the same set of logic when have devised in our galaxy could apply to the entire multiverse itself. That sounds like inductive thinking that rarely leads to the correct answer especially in an ridiculously complicated system.
I am working on definitions. The question relies heavily on definitions. It is not so much about making assumptions about how things work in detail but a question of putting together two contradictory terms.
Membranes themselves seem like they posses both qualities of the problem being both unstoppable and unmovable.
It's clear that they do not follow the laws of our universe since when they collide they just rebound then come back together again.
And Im making a lot of assumptions? Seems a little hypocritical to me... Also rebounding objects does not count as unstoppable. Even if the fabric of space was to invert at the point of collision as to allow the unstoppable force to continue the same path without rebounding, the collision would still cause a reaction in the immovable object depending on how long the contact was between the two.
Because I don't see how the same set of logic when have devised in our galaxy could apply to the entire multiverse itself.
I'm not saying that our logic applies to the entire multiverse(if it exists). What I am saying is that finding an alternate universe in which the question can be resolved requires looking for universes in which our logic can be applied. You cannot apply this question to any parallel universe in which our logic does not apply.
You might as well say in a logical or a universe that follow similar laws as our own this is impossible
Yes, this is what I am saying.
Because I don't see how the same set of logic when have devised in our galaxy could apply to the entire multiverse itself
And I am saying that the question is irrelevant in situations where our logic does not apply.
Unstoppable, Unmovable, Collision. Together they are contradictory terms. You cannot change their definitions for the question. Even with a differing set of logic, a solution would involve changing the definition of one of these terms, which butchers the question.
This question clearly has no solution in our universe, so now were talking about the possibility of a solution outside our universe. So now were down the route of a situation were the constraints of the question does not apply. In this case, the question is irrelevant. Why can you not see this?
if a unmovable object hits a unstoppable force then the force would be always in motion and the object always in rest, i believe in other parralel universes, and the only thing i can think is that its collision would trigger something on an atomic level so either it would rip thru this unmovable force at the atomic level going thru the gaps between atoms, so momentarily they would be one, or it would go thru it in another universe? maybe? i hope to know scientifically eventually, i like the idea of being an astrophysicist (even though i cant even spell it:P).
