It is clear that the fact to be explained - the expanding universe - is anti-Parmenidean in the highest degree; and as a consequence, neither of the two cosmologies can be Parmenidean.

Let me sum up my story. We have seen at least six deviations (of course, all heretical or conjectural) from the Parmenidean programme: imperfection (Newton); irreversibility; quantum-theoretical indeterminism, and the invasion of probability; the breakdown of the electromagnetic theory of matter; the breakdown of the atomistic theory of change over the transmutation of elementary particles; and the new cosmologies. Most of them were accompanied by Parmenidean apologies, which abound in modern physics; but these apologies are redundant, since it has turned out very clearly that science need not perish, or cease to progress, even if it does deviate from the Parmenidean version of rationalism. Admittedly, these developments have created a strong longing, a real need, for some great new constructive ideas. But this is all to the good: perhaps the demand will stimulate the supply. (As mentioned earlier, David Bohm has made a most interesting contribution towards a new theory of change.)