[Bill S (OP)]

Did I miss a response that would have covered this?

Can two particles, that are otherwise identical, be distinguished on the basis of position alone?

[yor_on]

Superpositions anyone :)
And Hup

[yor_on]

" Microstates and statistics are the key. "

Yeah, but what are they?
From where will we get a knowledge?

Imitating?

Maybe, but we have a split vision. And I think wisdom is more than just statistics.
Or let's just say, with wisdom we can stop before

[yor_on]

Btw Bill " There never was nothing. "

How did it 'start'?

[Bill S (OP)]

How did it 'start'?

If there had ever been nothing, the question would be "How did what start?". 

Except, of course, there would be nothing to ask the question about, and no one to ask it.

[yor_on]

So you believe in a cyclic theory without a need for anything to 'start' then Bill?

[Bill S (OP)]

So you believe in a cyclic theory without a need for anything to 'start' then Bill?

Absolutely not.  Infinite cycles would be just another take on the idea of infinite numbers.

I try to avoid any reference to belief when considering scientific matters.  What I might, or might not, believe has nothing to do with it.  What I can, or cannot, accept logically is as far as I am prepared to go, and this is always open to change. Effecting that change requires convincing evidence.  The fact that I am looking for that evidence is the main reason why I tend to keep returning to certain topics – ad nausiam?

Hopefully, I will, eventually post my thoughts in  "Is it possible to define infinity?", so I’ll avoid going into too much detail here, but for now, suffice to say that an infinite and changeless cosmos, of which our perceived reality is a 3+1D “shadow” seems a reasonable possibility. 

[yor_on]

you know, that reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

And it's a possibility, although the 'infinite and changeless cosmos' might need a introduction

[Bill S (OP)]

Plato was way ahead of his time.

And it's a possibility, although the 'infinite and changeless cosmos' might need a introduction

While I agree with that, I suspect it would need someone with the right scientific credentials, and the ability to present the ideas in a way that would make the scientific community take notice, in order to make progress.  Bohm tried; Barbour is trying, but theirs are very much minority views.