[QUOTE=ralph124c]
The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus posutaletd that nothing in the universe is permanent-except for change. he discussed the parable of a man walking into a river=the water flows past, and the event is unique=nothing in that moment will ever be EXACTLY the same again. Is this correct? Will events in human history never recur? Or will someone named RALPH124c , eons from now, sit down at akeyboard and type this message?
[/QUOTE]
I would just say that the probability that two moments in this universe are identical in all respects is so remote that it’s not worth considering.
Not only can’t a man stip into the same stream twice, the same man can’t step into any stream twice.
[QUOTE=A. I. Wintermute]
If I start counting out loud 1, 2, 3, 4, …
I’ll never say 1 again.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, you’ll say 1 again, but you’ll never say it with that particular breath of air again. Even if you say 1 into a plastic bag, then re-inhale the same air, it will mix with the air in your lungs, and your lungs will extract a little more oxygen, and add a little more carbon dioxide and water vapor to the mix. You can never breathe the same breath again.
It’s tricky, I know. It’s even trickier when you say, “You are unique, just like everybody else.” :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
The article didn’t actually say that the existence of parallel universes was proven, only that certain observations of the universe in certain parts of the electromagnetic spectrum were consistent with a theory about parallel universes. More investigation is needed. However, the question is one that almost by definition can’t be settled definitely.
[/QUOTE]
That makes a little more sense. I’ve got nothing against wild speculation, that’s how many scientific theories began. I’d just like to see speculation honestly labeled as such. I worry that the press tends to overstate some of these ideas as “science” with all the respect that label grants.
By the way, Lord Ashtar, I didn’t mean to be snippy at you in my first post above. I was just responding to an idea that, ISTM, is fundamentaly unprovable but was apparantly being presnted as fact, or at least as a likely possibility. Math and theoretical physics are great, but science needs empirical evidence and testable predictions.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
By the way, Lord Ashtar, I didn’t mean to be snippy at you in my first post above. I was just responding to an idea that, ISTM, is fundamentaly unprovable but was apparantly being presnted as fact, or at least as a likely possibility. Math and theoretical physics are great, but science needs empirical evidence and testable predictions.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t take it as snippy. In fact, that was my first impression as I was reading the article myself. I remember thinking, “If we can’t even see 10^10[sup]118[/sup] meters away, how can we possibly speculate as to what’s there?” Admittedly, most of it was above my head, but it was fun trying to stretch my brain cells.
[QUOTE=Fiddle Peghead]
I found this link to a Scientific American article on parallel universes if anyone is interested.
This is a PDF file, btw.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the article to which I was referring earlier, in case anyone was wondering. Unless you have a PhD in quantum physics, be prepared for your head to spin.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
I would just say that the probability that two moments in this universe are identical in all respects is so remote that it’s not worth considering.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with this post wholeheartedly.
In addition, due to our incomplete understanding of quantum mechanics, even if the moments were exactly the same, going forward they will produce entirely different results if the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is correct! If, OTOH, there is a “deep hidden variable” somewhere that can also be set the same, going forward from an exactly the same universe will still produce the same outcome.
