You can never really do the same thing twice. Time is always moving forward and cannot be replicated. (Barring futuristic time-travel tech.)
As an example, steel before 1940s didn’t have minuscule traces of atmospheric radiation in it.
Research conducted after the atmosphere had increased radiation would be different to research conducted after, in that vein.
Scavenging WW1 wrecks for non-contaminated steel for use in things like medical equipment is still ongoing, as an example.
Time can certainly change the answer to a question without any input from the individual user.
Rivers and men, yes, but sometimes circumstances are close enough that it doesn’t change the results much.
At -1 I feel the need to state, I am right though, no?
Much and not at all are two vastly varying definitions in science.
And in this, I am right. Downvotes or not. Hill=dying.
If you die on the hill, you’ll never know whether the next time is different.
The small variations might not account for a change big enough to be relevant/perceptible, but yeah, I think you’re right regardless. 🤷
Perhaps we cannot actually do the same thing twice in exactly the same way.
But we can perceive that we are doing it a second time in exactly the same way, without perceiving the differences.
So, in practice, it can be replicated within the frame of our flesh-brained awareness.
I am right.
“Actually in practise” isn’t what this post is about.
and at -1 I’ll be pedantic.
I am correct. Equivocate as you will. But I am right.
Oh, I see what you did there. In order to make sure you believe your answer is correct, you added additional details that weren’t part of the original statement.
Cool.
Buh bye. Cool.
