I think if God creates a rock so heavy he can’t lift it, it’s probably a black hole. By definition we can’t know what happens inside a black hole, because no information escapes the event horizon. As it’s consistent with known physics that we can’t know many aspects of this interaction between God and the black hole, I think this paradox is basically solved. We don’t know any more about the interaction, but it’s no longer a paradox, it’s consistent with physics.
Comment on xkcd #3084: Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object
iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 month ago
so if god creates rock so heavy that it can’t lift it, its hand just passes through the rock? makes sense.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 month ago
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Actually, the new theory is that the hawking radiation exfiltrates information from inside the black hole via quantum entanglement. Of course, it hasn’t been tested yet for obvious reasons.
ripcord@lemmy.world 1 month ago
But black holes have finite mass. By “heavy” you’re implying it’s infinitely heavy or something.
You can definitely also lift a black hole.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Well I don’t know about any objects more massive than black holes. I think a black hole is really the only viable form a body can take once there’s enough matter in one place, like there’s an upper limit for the size of stars and after that anything larger collapses into a black hole.
An object of infinite mass is a contradiction, a universe can’t exist with a single object of infinite mass, it would consume everything instantly.
ripcord@lemmy.world 1 month ago
OK, but being very massive is not the same as what was being discussed.
You can also “lift” a finitely massive black hole with anything else massive.
Snazz@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It may be worth it to decide how we define ‘unstoppable force’ and ‘immovable object’.
An Immovable Object has 0 velocity:
v = 0
Acceleration is the time derivative of velocity:
a = d/dt(v(t))
a = d/dt(0)
a = 0
And we know that
a = F~net~ / m
An object with infinite mass would satisfy this equation, but an object with no net force would too. We could add a correction force that will satisfy the constraint of 0 net force.
|F~net~| = 0
∑F~i~ = 0
F~correction~ + … = 0
To satisfy Newton’s 3rd law, we would need a reaction force to our correction force somewhere, but let’s not worry about that for now.
A physics definition of ‘Unstoppable Force’ is:
|F~unstoppable~| =/= 0
In this case the gravitational force fits this description, given a few constraints
F~g~ = Gm∑ M~i~ / x~i~^2^
As long as the gravitational constant G is not 0, our object has mass, and
∑ M~i~ / x~i~^2^ =/= 0, then
|F~g~| > 0
But this does feel kinda like cheating because it’s not really what people mean by ‘unstoppable force’. the other way to define it is just immovable object in a different reference frame.
a = 0, |v| > 0
I’m gonna stop here because this is annoying to type out on mobile
Saleh@feddit.org 1 month ago
God is distinct from the creation and has no physical shape inside the creation so the idea of “object too heavy to lift” is already conceptually nonsensical.
But also in the scope of our physics: What would an object be that is too heavy to “lift” for anyone and anything? It would be the heaviest object in the universe. So what will happen with the heaviest object in the universe? It would be the main center of gravity for everything else. In the same way you cannot “lift” the earth, but rather lift yourself from it as your force will just propel you away from the earth rather than the earth away from you, while you are inside the area dominated by earths gravitational field.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 month ago
When you jump you are pushing the earth away from yourself a little bit, and then some of your gravity pulls the earth back toward you. For a brief moment your jump has in fact altered Earth’s orbit.
Saleh@feddit.org 1 month ago
Relative to the sun, which is the next center of gravity. As you go up the chain you end up with the heaviest object which you cannot move relative to anything, as it is the logical point of relative movement for everything else.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Not relative to the sun, relative to momentum. Changes in the magnitude or direction of velocity are objective, not relative. These translate to real changes in momentum, from any reference frame. A real change in momentum is imparted upon the Earth equal to your momentum at the moment your contact with the Earth ceases.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You need to be thinking about n-body physics though, everything affects everything. If the earth moves, that moves the sun a little, if the sun moves, that moves the local cluster a little, etc. Why wouldn’t that affect this heaviest object?
I mean, are you suggesting that this heaviest object is simply the center of the universe and that all coordinates are defined around it? Because while that seems practical, I don’t think it’s how matter and space interact.
iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 month ago
nothing is distinct from xkcd, if it exists there is an xkcd about it
Dasus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I create an immovable basketball hoop.
You have an unstoppable basketball.
What’s the issue?
Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I like to jam, but sometimes I also like to slam
PlexSheep@infosec.pub 1 month ago
No that doesn’t make sense. The thing you’re alluring at is a classical thought experiment showing contradiction in allmightiness.
P1: God is Almighty, meaning he can do anything
Therefore he must be able to create a stone he can’t lift. But then there is something he can’t do: Either he can not lift the super stone, or he can not create a super stone that he can’t lift.
iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 month ago
lol I am not alluring to anything I am just giving a xkcd twist to this well known thought paradox
traceur301@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
… it’s ‘alluding’, y’all
Tippon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
I don’t know, heavy things attract other things, so maybe it is alluring ;)
RandomVideos@programming.dev 1 month ago
An omnipotent and omniscient being would have the ability to change words definitions or logic. They cant be stopped with a logical contradiction
AA5B@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Easy to resolve that conflict. A creator would by definition be outside the universe since he predated it. However, if he went into the universe, his presence there would be subject to its laws
We can easily say the creator could make an immovable object, within its environment. If the creator went into the environment, he would be subject to its laws, and the front would fall off …. Er, the object would be immovable. However when his being s beyond the environment, creating an immovable object is just part of his plan
Gladaed@feddit.org 1 month ago
A rock so heavy you cannot lift it is not an immovable object. Just cause you are weak does not mean you are right.
iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 month ago
tell that to god
traceur301@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
Dear God,
A rock so heavy you cannot lift it is not an immovable object. Just cause you are weak does not mean you are right.
Kind regards, me
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Dead nerd,
Get smote.
God
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Even if they are able to lift it, it still would mean god wasn’t powerful enough to create a rock so heavy even they couldn’t lift it.
Making them essentially weak again.