If the universe is infinitely old, how did Today ever get here?

[Into the Night]

A resonant frequency in electronics is one with minimal resistance to the passage of the signal.

Nope. A resonant frequency in electronics is one where inductive and capacitive reactance are equal.
At that point a signal may be more attenuated than any other frequency, or least attenuated of any other frequency, depending on the circuit.

A resonant parallel circuit will attenuate more than at any other frequency, while a serial resonant circuit is the reverse.

That is, it allows the signal to travel the furthest without degradation.

Nope. ONLY with series resonant circuits. For parallel resonant circuits, the opposite is true.

In terms of the universe, it would allow various quantum

A particle is not the universe. The universe is not a particle. The universe is not a quanta.

and subatomic particlesto move without resistance essentially.

Nothing to do with resonance or quanta.

Of course, this is all speculative on my part.

It is ignoring quantum mechanics, electronics, and physics.

 

[Into the Night]

According to the Many Worlds hypothesis, there is a single universal wave function that describes the quantum state of the whole universe. I'm not sure exactly how resonance ties into this universal wave function and the Many Worlds interpretation, but I bet at some level there's a relationship.

The universe is not a wave. The universe is only ONE universe by definition. Uni- means ONE.
Your buzzwords won't save you.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Nope. A resonant frequency in electronics is one where inductive and capacitive reactance are equal.
At that point a signal may be more attenuated than any other frequency, or least attenuated of any other frequency, depending on the circuit.

A resonant parallel circuit will attenuate more than at any other frequency, while a serial resonant circuit is the reverse.


Nope. ONLY with series resonant circuits. For parallel resonant circuits, the opposite is true.

A particle is not the universe. The universe is not a particle. The universe is not a quanta.

Nothing to do with resonance or quanta.

It is ignoring quantum mechanics, electronics, and physics.

See bandpass versus band reject circuits.

 

[Into the Night]

See bandpass versus band reject circuits.

Which I just discussed. You just nullified your earlier post. Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Then it should be easy for you to explain exactly how we went through an infinite amount of days in order to get to today.

so stupid.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

To me, saying the universe is infinitely old, without explaining how we passed through an infinite amount of time to get to the present is invoking a miracle.
From a strictly logical and mathematical perspective, it would be truly miraculous to have an uncountable, infinite, and unbounded amount of time in the past, prior to arriving at today.

I obviously don't understand that level of math.
My math peaked out at learning how to calculate the sum of on-base percentage plus slugging average.
It's called "OPS" in baseball statistics.
I honestly thought that I had invented it myself as a boy, and then suddenly, it began appearing in the record books, post facto.

On a purely conceptual basis, however, I can't imagine time not being infinite.
How can there be a beginning with nothing before it?
That is indeed unimaginable---just like a boundary with nothing outside of it.
If math can't account for a concept that simple,
I would mistrust the math before mistrusting the simple concept.

But that's just me, of course.

 

[gmark77]

I obviously don't understand that level of math.

The math of infinity is tricky and weird. There are even "different sizes" of infinities (google it, prepare to be weirded out).

I'm not convinced this is a "math problem" though. Personally I'm struggling with the foundational question here. It kind of feels like if I have an infinite number line it is impossible for me to find a single "value" within the number line because there is no "counting" of an infinity. That doesn't quite compute for me.

The question seems to break down when one thinks that if I start at "today" it means there had to be a "yesterday" and before that a "day before yesterday" etc. (N-2, N-1, N, N+1, N+2....) and extending that back without a starting point for some reason I can't quite wrap my head around, makes the present impossible.

You are not alone in being flummoxed by this discussion.

 

[Cypress]

I obviously don't understand that level of math.
My math peaked out at learning how to calculate the sum of on-base percentage plus slugging average.
It's called "OPS" in baseball statistics.
I honestly thought that I had invented it myself as a boy, and then suddenly, it began appearing in the record books, post facto.

On a purely conceptual basis, however, I can't imagine time not being infinite.
How can there be a beginning with nothing before it?
That is indeed unimaginable---just like a boundary with nothing outside of it.
If math can't account for a concept that simple,
I would mistrust the math before mistrusting the simple concept.

But that's just me, of course.

It's an unappealing choice either way.
Either the universe sprang into existence billions of years ago from nothingness.

Or somehow we got to the present day by traversing an infinite and uncountable amount of time in the past.

It depends on whether you find 'nothingness', or traversing an infinite amount time more believable

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It's an unappealing choice either way.
Either the universe sprang into existence billions of years ago from nothingness.

Or somehow we got to the present day by traversing an infinite and uncountable amount of time in the past.

It depends on whether you find 'nothingness', or traversing an infinite amount time more believable

I don't find either relevant to my life, but I do find one easier to imagine than the other.

 

[Into the Night]

I obviously don't understand that level of math.

He's not using math.

 

[Into the Night]

The math of infinity is tricky and weird.

Infinity is not math.

There are even "different sizes" of infinities (google it, prepare to be weirded out).

Infinity is a NaN. It has no size.

I'm not convinced this is a "math problem" though. Personally I'm struggling with the foundational question here. It kind of feels like if I have an infinite number line it is impossible for me to find a single "value" within the number line because there is no "counting" of an infinity. That doesn't quite compute for me.

Use zero. That is the origin point of the number line.

The question seems to break down when one thinks that if I start at "today" it means there had to be a "yesterday" and before that a "day before yesterday" etc. (N-2, N-1, N, N+1, N+2....) and extending that back without a starting point for some reason I can't quite wrap my head around, makes the present impossible.

You are not alone in being flummoxed by this discussion.

True. You're flummoxed as well.
That's all your BS gets you.

 

[gmark77]

Infinity is not math.

Infinity is a NaN. It has no size.

Use zero. That is the origin point of the number line.

True. You're flummoxed as well.
That's all your BS gets you.

Please believe me when I tell you I couldn't care less what you have to say about ANYTHING EVER. So no need to reply to ANY post of mine. Your points are invariably simply bullshit.

You annoy me and you literally RUIN every single thread where you show up.

 

[Into the Night]

Please believe me when I tell you I couldn't care less what you have to say about ANYTHING EVER.

I already know about your bulverism fallacy.

 

[Hume]

Please believe me when I tell you I couldn't care less what you have to say about ANYTHING EVER. So no need to reply to ANY post of mine. Your points are invariably simply bullshit.

You annoy me and you literally RUIN every single thread where you show up.

ITN is an idiot.