You know that old not-really-a-riddle about what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? That’s always bugged me.
I mean, the answer is supposed to be “an inconceivable event”, and it’s supposed to make you think about… something profound and mysterious, probably. But surely it’s much simpler than any pseudo-philosophical nonsense it’s supposed to inspire, and actually those two things simply can’t both exist in the same universe.
If an unstoppable force is what it claims to be, then it’s something that cannot be stopped, by definition. You can’t then introduce something called an immovable object which can stop anything, assuming that’s what we’re meant to take away from the “immovable” description. If such a thing exists, then our supposedly unstoppable force isn’t actually unstoppable.
The best way you could hope to describe such a situation, were it really occurring, is to ponder what will happen when this “hitherto unstoppable force” meets that “yet to be observed moving object”. One of them’s got to win. So the answer is that either the unstoppable force will turn out to be stoppable (and stop), or the immovable object will turn out to be movable (and move). Nothing inconceivable about that.
Maybe I’m being too literal. If anyone wants to explain why I should care about an alternative, more metaphysical interpretation of the question, go ahead. And I have no idea why any of this is on my mind today, but I have nothing else to write about right now.