@Daft_ish@lemmy.world to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml • edit-26 months agoWhat is your favorite paradox or conundrum? I am partial to can god kill god?message-square291fedilinkarrow-up1137arrow-down119file-text
arrow-up1118arrow-down1message-squareWhat is your favorite paradox or conundrum? I am partial to can god kill god?@Daft_ish@lemmy.world to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml • edit-26 months agomessage-square291fedilinkfile-text
minus-square@ouRKaoSlink6•6 months agoIf you have a sword that can cut through anything, and a shield that can absorb any damage unharmed, what happens if you swing the sword at the shield?
minus-square@fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilink4•6 months agoIs this really a paradox or is it just an annoying sentence? As in, these two things can not both exist, yet you’re asking me what would happen if they did, even though they can’t.
minus-square@ouRKaoSlink2•6 months agoIt’s basically a way to paraphrase the meeting of an unstoppable force vs an immovable object. I just like the weaponry symbology.
minus-square@Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglish1•6 months agoThe sword would pass through and the shield would either be unaffected or immediately reconstitute itself. The hypothetical does not necessarily assume that the wearer of the shield would be protected.
If you have a sword that can cut through anything, and a shield that can absorb any damage unharmed, what happens if you swing the sword at the shield?
Is this really a paradox or is it just an annoying sentence?
As in, these two things can not both exist, yet you’re asking me what would happen if they did, even though they can’t.
It’s basically a way to paraphrase the meeting of an unstoppable force vs an immovable object.
I just like the weaponry symbology.
BONG
Big bang
The sword would pass through and the shield would either be unaffected or immediately reconstitute itself.
The hypothetical does not necessarily assume that the wearer of the shield would be protected.