Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a philosophical manner of speaking, that's true. You never step into the same river twice.
Indeed. But the scientific approach is different -- it's all about finding patterns that do repeat and making predictions. The original comment's "theorem" is funny, but unless you are doing a homework problem, you better have a good intuition for when to take a second look at a seemingly simple situation.
Sure, but if you're scientifically looking to answer "where and when will the sun rise" you're only going to collect enough variables to answer that question, and within an acceptable margin of error, right? If you can measure with greater accuracy and collect more data, then you would probably realize that every sunrise is not strictly identical.
We're splitting hairs at this point but I wonder if the comment I replied to that stated that "it has never happened before and will never happen again" can't be argued to be actually true. In a philosophical sense it's more obvious, but in a scientific sense, the more precision you get in your analysis of a sunrise, the more data you would get that differentiates it from other sunrises, no? After all, our solar system isn't closed and constant and there are minor changes not only in smaller factors like weather on Earth, but also larger factors like the orbit of the earth and the drift of the different planetary bodies.