<< Second of all, I am also a chemist, as well as a philosopher. IF the laws
of
physics as we know them hold true, and the big bang/big crunch theory is
true, then the ER must be true. The law of inertia states also that an
object in motion remains at the same velocity (speed & direction) until
acted
on by an outside force. As such, when the universe expands, there is
nothing
ahead of the last body, therefore all bodies continue on a straight path
(classical mechanics), and on the crunch, the bodies that crunch together
would create a large source of gravity, and thus would pull all bodies
straight towards it. Since we have the law of definate proportion, and the
law of conservation of mass and energy, and the law of inertia, it wouldn't
be logical to deny the ER without denying one of these laws. If you want to
deny one of the physical laws, I wish you luck on your Ph.D. thesis.
Rich >>
Rich,
I will disagree even if I hold the modern law's of physics to be true. A
literal interpretation of ER seems to me almost ridiculous, anyhow. Imagine
some kind of thought experiment: I'm sitting here and I'm trying with all my
skill to tie my shoes at least two times exactly as fast as before. Well,
there is a measuring apparatus and I'm starting. Perhaps by accident the
result will come out that there is really a repetition, in that case I can
demand a more 'sensible' apparatus, for I assume this result is because of
the apparatus' inexactness, and so on ad infinitum. The more exact the
apparatus the less is the chance for an exact repetition, for the feeling of
repetition only occurs to us because of the inexactness of our senses: For
now I will assume there is no really perfect return of whatsoever. To give a
mathematical example: There are infinite possibilities between 1 and 2 and no
repetition is neccessary: 1-1.9-1.0034-1.345 and so on. Perhaps you will
obeject that the difference is to minimal and for that reason can be
neglected, but than at least you will distance yourself from a strict
interpretation of ER. But now this example above is a very narrow quarter.
E.g. in the course of evolution in every step of it and in anything this
possibilities are valid, the possibility of infinite different grades and in
exchange which it sourroundings (therefore this famous example of the 'chaos
theory' that the swing of a butterfly's wing can change a whole macro system
by chance and beyond the possibility of calculating it). Well, you can
pretend that the universe collapses and big banges for infinite times, and
therefore there must appear an almost similiar universe sometimes. Even if I
concede this, and I do under your suppositions, the fact pertains that the
line of successions of the different universes itself and as a whole will
never repeat twice as before and is beyond calculation because under the rule
of chaotic chance and neccessity.
Moreover: The so called laws of modern physics are not valid at the very
start point of big bang, nobody knows the laws of a null universe with
infinitely heat and energy, it is something we are even not able to imagine.
But if we are not able to get knowledge concerning the laws in the birth
moment all presumed calculations of what the child will look like are
imaginary and science fiction. It is likely that our universe is only a
product by accidence and once swept out will never occur again in
this appearence (that it occurred once is neither a proof nor a stronghold
that it is a product of laws we can not presume to be valid in the moment of
birth).
-Litok
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---