Ayye mata meekata oyata hithena vidihe uththarayak dendako, oya science ultimate truth kiyana unta meeka idiripath karanna puluvan neda i say science is also an concept based on an perspective which prevails due to the existence of an observer... now imagine u are newton and u have a box infront of u , then u apply and unbalance force on it ( suppose it came from the transfer of Kinetic energy of wind , a wind blew and the box moved simple as that ) and u observe that the box moves and u introduce ur 1st law ( u are suppose to be newton ).. But imagine , u as Newton, is not represent at the incident ( simply u are not observing the observation or u are dead ) , the wind will blow ( which also be unobervable as i describe futher ) , and i question u will the box move ??? NO , if the boxes doesn't move how can u introduce ur law ?? Now u might say it moves , but how can it move if u are not oberving it's motion ???even if u think it moves , it only moves in relatively to someone else , and for u to even define that motion u must exists right , otherwise how would u define something with relatively to someone ?? So Simply u must exists to identify the observation ( which is also suppose to be the first step in science) , so when u are not existing how can u identify the observation , so u simply see that science is based on the perspective of the observer.... so how can u say a concept such a science is the ultimate truth when it is dependent on an observer? Even in future , if science finds ultimate truth with relatively to science, how will u even confirm that it is the ultimate truth , bcuz science is dependent on u as i explained ?? Simply when u ceased to exists , science ceases to exists , so if one day science claims that it has discovered " ultimate truth " on the basic concepts of science, when one day u ceased to exists , science won't exist, so yea , ultimate truth wouldn't exists either , shouldn't the ultimate truth be independent of ur existence? .. mn meeka vena kenta demma msg ekak
See malli. Yes, observation is the first step. But for u to proceed to further steps to prove ur observation, u would have to gather a massive number of educated & well exercised evidences related to build the required hypothesis for the research/examination, null hypothesis & alternative hypothesis to predict the effects & non effects between the variables related to make path to the point u want to prove before any other levels. Theories comes later after a sufficient number of educated research supports the same claim, so the original scientist would declare that under his belt. So declared laws come after sufficient examination, amalgamation of evidences related and experimental research by many. How, laws can be changed. it won't be the ultimate truth, EX: Darwin upgraded Lamad's theory of evolution and Einstein upgraded Newton's law.. likewise Science can be challenged. And Science is man-made, so it will vanish with man. We've had Sciences unknown, and now gone. Such as the prehistoric Sciences of Egypt or Sciences of ancient South Asia. That Science is gone. We've built a Science that suits us for now and someday will be replaced. It shall never be an absolute. Science is not ultimate and absolute. It's fundamental base only
@@_ambunnyyes ayye , i have seen some ppl describing science to be the ultimate truth , that i would consider to be a naive and pathetic decision, bcuz science exists until we , or " life " exists , otherwise all are just happening how the universe wants it to be , we are the onces who are trying to enforce a definition for these phenomenas , it's just depends on our perspective, so simply science itself can be a dilusion ... i think ppl should have a moderate approach regarding every aspects in life , i have see some ppl rejecting stuff like afterlife , hell , heaven without truely knowing it , bcuz we all haven't travelled through the entire universe to clarify our decision.. but i see a dark side in such rejection too , like this ...
@@_ambunny now imagine ayye , u don't believe in hell or heaven , and their is another guy who believes in it and do accordingly to prevent to be born their , how if actually hell and heaven doesn't prevail , that's fine , both of u will have the same destiny after death , but the danger is that if such a thing does exists , then ayye ur life is at risk right , ur non believing nature would result in a devastating end right , and the other guy would be fine , bcuz he did things to avoid it .. .. i see that some things , thove we think it can't happen so , we are bound to face it , like imagin ayye , if u are simply composed of cells , means u are made of just cells and and cells form u , u should be able to control all the cells in ur body right , but we can't do that we are bound by this law that allows our body to do that it wants , if u see deeply into what can u actually do with this body through ur mind , u can find it's just movements, that's it ( when considered mind and body are two things ) , so u are bounded by this law to be followed accordingly , we can think like , why do we need oxygen to live ,but we are bounded by this need , so if afterlife was also such a law that we are bounded to, then whatever we believe we must face it , so i see ppl rejecting such things as a lack of understanding of ur own destiny, it's always good to be in the middle of everything and make our lives accordingly, right ..
@@verynice263 about hell & heaven. The only way is one should die first to get to know the drill that follows. Thus, that's not something workable to be practical while alive. Time waste. So to do good should be in humanity rather than faith.
@@_ambunny i am saying , not to reject anything , bcuz finally it will end up destroying urself not me , thsi universe is too big to reject right ? So how can u reject, bcuz one day u will die , and then u will have to face the common truth , it's good to keep everything in mind and work accordingly, i didn't mean wasting time , i meant better to keep in mind , bcuz at last , u will have to face the unknown ...
