What a cool story. 
So I guess the answer is divine intervention. 
You are moving the goalposts. Persons who do not exist can be reasonably argued not to be people, and thus can be excepted.
They will never meet" is not a reasonable restriction, and so neither of their statements is nonsensical. They’re if statements that explicitly describe hypotheticals; whether any given hypothetical occurs is irrelevent to their truth, as are any conditions not referenced by the hypothetical.
“we’ve stipulated”? Nonsense. In real logic, statements mean what they say, with no funny-business about re-defining words. The definitions (including “any”, as normal people use it)explicitly include the performers. If they contradict, which they do, it’s because one of the signs is false.
Logically, one of the signs must be true, and one must be false. Period.
As well you should. All I can think of is bouncer in bar. He thinks he’s immovable, I know I’m unstoppable.
If an invisible pink unicorn with infinitely sharp teeth is stranded in an impossibly large field of unchewable clear grass, will it starve to life?
Depends. Define “pink.”
I understand how solid matter works, and that’s not what I’m saying. I am talking about mass, because inertia is a big part of the equation here. You’re calling a laser beam an object, and that’s fine, as it can fit the definition of “object” – I don’t want to argue over semantics. But, I think gravity and mass are relevant to the OP. I think it’s clear the OP was talking about solid objects and not some exotic flavor of particles (which in your original description seems non-existent). If you’re saying the UO and the IO are laser beams, or even a swarm of neutrinos then fine, they pass right by each other. But I think it’s kind of missing the point.
But, whatever. I’m kind of bored now.
Sorry, Pleonast, but your attempt to resolve this paradox is laughable.
To use the example I’ve used before, imagine that there are two objects. The first one is bigger than any other object in the universe. The second one is also bigger than any other object in the universe. Which one is bigger?
If you say the first object, I’ll point out that the second object is bigger than any other object in the universe so it must be bigger than the first object. If you say the second object is bigger, I’ll say that the first object, by definition, must be bigger than the second object. It’s a logical paradox which proves the premise is impossible: you can’t have more than one biggest object in the universe.
But trying to claim that both objects are bigger than the other one as long as they don’t meet is ridiculous. They can’t both be bigger than each other.
1 - the man and the woman must meet because the question asks what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, at least that’s the phrasing madden uses to describe running backs and linebackers.
2 - the fact that the objects exist massless or not, is good enough. remember that according to einstein, mass and energy are one and the same. momentum for mass is (m*v), for the massless, (planck’s constat * wavelength).
3 - the fact that the velocity changes after bouncing is irrelevant since the object doesn’t “stop”
4 - i think we’ve exhausted all avenues of reasonable possibilities of what happens and have come to 3 possible outcomes:
a - it bounces off
b - it passes through like light through a window
c - the reason for the immovable object being immovable is its infinite mass, in which case it stretches space-time so much that the unstoppable object will not be able to reach the immovable object.
yeah?
I’m going for pancakes3.
I can’t see any other way other than his option “a”.
Although I did say that the UO moves at always the same speed I did not say that speed couldn’t be reduced by impact with IO
The unstoppable force is the whole of the universe. The immoveable object is the absolute boundary of the whole of the universe. The two rebound off each other in an infinite cosmic resonance.
/Have not read the whole thread, sorry if this a repeat of a previous answer.
Both IO and UO are the size of cricket or baseballs
Hey, maybe you are right. So what?
And maybe my wild-ass guess was right. Again, so what?
Either way, I don’t know. So what?
So? What?
Yeah, I agree with this. But it’s a different problem then the unstoppable force and immovable object.
No, I’m not. It has been claimed that an UF and IO cannot logically coexist. To disprove that claim, we only need to find one logically consistent counter example. To prove the claim, we must show that there can be no logically consistent scenarios in which the UF and IO coexist. (Yes, that is proving a negative, so it will be difficult.)
I provided a counter-example with an immovable pin and unstoppable bowling ball. That has yet to be shown inconsistent. The circus scenario was presented and is under discussion.
It’s not logical to exclude some impossibilities and not others from the set of “any person”.
Why is it not reasonable? The circus scenario has three premises:1. A Strong Man who can lift any person.
2. A Heavy Lady who cannot be lifted by any person.
3. It is impossible for the Strong Man and Heavy Lady to interact.
Following the rules logic, you may not deny any of the premises. If you prefer to remove one of the premises, that’s fine, but then it’s a different scenario.
No, logic means using the definitions and premises given by the problem. Appealing to common sense or the real world is not allowed.
If “any” can include impossible members, then no statement with “any” can be logically valid.
And he no longer beats his wife. 
So anyway:
Hurtling through space is this very large lady who says that no man can lift her.
Directly in her path is this very strong bloke who says that he can lift any person in existence
What hap…oh never mind
the circus scenario is indeed a different scenario because if you’re equating the strongman to the UO, and the hefty lady to the IO, then the very premise of this thread necessitates the two to interact. The question isn’t “can an IO and a UO exist simultaneously?” but rather “What happens when an IO meets an UO?” which is already assuming the existence of the two.
My proposal for the strong man, hefty lady scenario is relativistic. The strong man when grabbing the hefty lady literally pushes himself into a hole the ground, since if she’s pushing down at infinite force, and he’s pushing up with infinite force, to balance out the free body diagram, he derives his upward lifting force with his feet pushing down on the ground and the ground pushing back. Now since the ground isn’t capable of responding with an infinite force, it gives way. Thus the strong man experiences a change in position, which would suggest he lifted the woman, and the woman having not experience movement can claim she still hasn’t been lifted.
No. It’s the same thing. You’re taking an absolute quality and treating it as a relative quality.
Being an immoveable object is an absolute quality - it says that there is no possible force that can move the object. But the unstoppable force is such a force. If an unstoppable force can exist in the universe, then there is a possible force in the universe that can more the immoveable object - so it’s not truly immoveable. And vice-versa.
Your contention is the equivalent of claiming that anyone who hasn’t died yet can be defined as being immortal. Somebody who hasn’t died yet is not the same as somebody who cannot die. And something that hasn’t been moved yet is not the same as something that cannot be moved.
Precisely. And in my bowling pin/ball example, there is no possible force that can move the pin. So, logic forces us to accept that the pin is immovable.
This is only a problem if it is possible for the posited UF to interact with the IO. In my example, it is impossible for the ball to interact with the pin. And there are no possible objects which can stop the ball, since it is not possible for the pin to stop the ball. So logic forces us to accept that the ball is unstoppable.
No, my contention is equivalent to claiming that someone who can never die is immortal. “Never” is different than “has not yet”.
But that means that both unstoppability and immovability are merely equivalent to non-interacting, so that every non-interacting object would be both unstoppable and immovable – think of a ball of stuff, call it A, linearly moving through empty space. Since there’s nothing that could stop it, by your definition it would be considered unstoppable (and in a comoving reference frame, immovable). Now I teleport myself in there, and catch the ball – obviously, then it’s not unstoppable any more. True, I have violated the non-interacting condition, but let’s look at this other ball, call it B, also moving linearly through empty space. Again, I try my teleport catch trick. Only this time, I find I cannot catch it – in fact, using precision measurement, I find out that no amount of force I exert imparts any acceleration unto the object, and, since even a tiny force would impart a small acceleration on any movable object, correctly conclude that this object must be immovable/unstoppable.
Both balls A and B would be, according to your definition, considered unstoppable, yet there is quite clearly a difference in their unstoppability; to me, this can only mean that ball B is the one that is truly unstoppable, and ball A is, well, call it virtually unstoppable (i.e. unstoppable until something stops it).
And in that vein, truly unstoppable and truly immovable objects are mutually inconsistent, whether or not they ever interact.
You have three scenarios:A1: "think of a ball of stuff, call it A, linearly moving through empty space. Since there’s nothing that could stop it, by your definition it would be considered unstoppable"We agree, it is unstoppable.A2: "Now I teleport myself in there, and catch the ball – obviously, then it’s not unstoppable any more."We agree, it is stoppable. But this is a different scenario than A1. In A1, “there’s nothing that could stop it”. In A2, there is. Different premises result in different logical conclusions.B: "let’s look at this other ball, call it B, also moving linearly through empty space. Again, I try my teleport catch trick. Only this time, I find I cannot catch it"This is similar to A1, in that there is nothing that could stop the ball. So it’s unstoppable.