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

T. A. Gardner said:
A resonant frequency in electronics is one with minimal resistance to the passage of the signal.
Click to expand...
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.

T. A. Gardner said:
That is, it allows the signal to travel the furthest without degradation.
Click to expand...
Nope. ONLY with series resonant circuits. For parallel resonant circuits, the opposite is true.
T. A. Gardner said:
In terms of the universe, it would allow various quantum
Click to expand...
A particle is not the universe. The universe is not a particle. The universe is not a quanta.
T. A. Gardner said:
and subatomic particlesto move without resistance essentially.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with resonance or quanta.
T. A. Gardner said:
Of course, this is all speculative on my part.
Click to expand...
It is ignoring quantum mechanics, electronics, and physics.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
The universe is not a wave. The universe is only ONE universe by definition. Uni- means ONE.
Your buzzwords won't save you.
 
Into the Night said:
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.
Click to expand...
QRRvLMn.jpg


See bandpass versus band reject circuits.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I obviously don't understand that level of math.
Click to expand...

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.

 
NiftyNiblick said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Cypress said:
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
Click to expand...
I don't find either relevant to my life, but I do find one easier to imagine than the other.
 
gmark77 said:
The math of infinity is tricky and weird.
Click to expand...
Infinity is not math.
gmark77 said:
There are even "different sizes" of infinities (google it, prepare to be weirded out).
Click to expand...
Infinity is a NaN. It has no size.
gmark77 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Use zero. That is the origin point of the number line.
gmark77 said:
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.
Click to expand...
True. You're flummoxed as well.
That's all your BS gets you.
 
Into the Night said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
gmark77 said:
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.
Click to expand...
ITN is an idiot.
 
Cypress said:
On balance, I find nothingness easier to imagine than counting sequentially through infinity.
Click to expand...

If you are having difficulty with understanding how we could have arrived at "today" on an infinite timeline, would you agree that "tomorrow" and "yesterday" are, indeed, real?

You are sitting at "N" which you feel is unknowable because infinity can't be counted, but surely you must agree that it is easy to show that N+1 and N-1 both are knowable.

If anything that is what I feel Nifty is saying. It certainly is easy enough to wrap our heads around and, like my earlier example of infinite series, serves our quotidian needs.

I approach free will the same way. There's a growing body of scientific evidence that questions whether free will is real or not. But I still function on a daily basis as if I have free will regardless. It's nearly incomprehensible to me that what "feels" like decisions may not be my conscious decision afterall.
 
gmark77 said:
If you are having difficulty with understanding how we could have arrived at "today" on an infinite timeline, would you agree that "tomorrow" and "yesterday" are, indeed, real?

You are sitting at "N" which you feel is unknowable because infinity can't be counted, but surely you must agree that it is easy to show that N+1 and N-1 both are knowable.

If anything that is what I feel Nifty is saying. It certainly is easy enough to wrap our heads around and, like my earlier example of infinite series, serves our quotidian needs.

I approach free will the same way. There's a growing body of scientific evidence that questions whether free will is real or not. But I still function on a daily basis as if I have free will regardless. It's nearly incomprehensible to me that what "feels" like decisions may not be my conscious decision afterall.
Click to expand...
Time is sequential and linear in the scientific viewpoint.

We are part of that sequence.

We didn't arbitrarily get dropped out of nowhere onto that timeline. We are part of everything that came before.

If before us was an infinite amount of time, then we would have to count sequentially through an infinite amount of time units to arrive at the present. That is illogical and irrational.
 
Cypress said:
Time is sequential and linear in the scientific viewpoint.

We are part of that sequence.

We didn't arbitrarily get dropped out of nowhere onto that timeline. We are part of everything that came before.

If before us was an infinite amount of time, then we would have to count sequentially through an infinite amount of time units to arrive at the present. That is illogical and irrational.
Click to expand...

Apparently my position is not strange as others raise the same objection to your proposal as I did.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1djufju/if_the_universe_has_an_infinite_past_then_how


 
gmark77 said:
Apparently my position is not strange as others raise the same objection to your proposal as I did.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1djufju/if_the_universe_has_an_infinite_past_then_how


Click to expand...
Some guy posting on Reddit is your evidence? How deep into Googling did you have to venture to find that?

Why not explain how you can count sequentially to infinity in your own words? What you described does not result in being able to count to infinity, because you artificially and arbitrarily add an origin point.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Some guy posting on Reddit is your evidence? How deep into Googling did you have to venture to find that?

Why not explain how you can count sequentially to infinity in your own words? What you described does not result in being able to count to infinity, because you artificially and arbitrarily add an origin point.
Click to expand...

Just a friendly reminder that your musings are no more correct than the musings of countless others who, like me, hold differing views.

Also: it took me 2 minutes to find that. DIdn't you do any searching on the topic before posting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top