Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

ArisKatsaris comments on Excluding the Supernatural - Less Wrong

37 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 September 2008 12:12AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (139)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 22 April 2011 01:22:31AM 10 points [-]

Regardless of the game rules, both of those objects can't exist in the same world. Either the object wasn't immovable or the force wasn't unstoppable.

What if they pass through each other? Then the one doesn't move, and the other doesn't stop.

Comment author: Blueberry 25 March 2012 01:00:21AM 4 points [-]

Mind. Blown.

Comment author: gjm 07 December 2015 03:54:22PM 1 point [-]

The usual formulation has "irresistible" rather than "unstoppable" and I always took it that (1) "irresistible force" means something that substantially affects everything it interacts with, (2) "immovable object" means something on which no force has a substantial effect, and (3) "meets" means "interacts with in the way forces in this general class interact with objects in this general class".

So if they "pass through each other", that means the object remained immovable but the force wasn't in this case irresistible.

(It's an amusing answer, though.)

Comment author: satt 09 December 2015 12:38:57AM 0 points [-]

The usual formulation has "irresistible" rather than "unstoppable"

You forgot the citation!