Science is the "end" of learning, and behind the "end" there is philosophy, and behind philosophy there is theology.
Why is there science, philosophy, and theology? In my opinion, this depends entirely on the cognitive ability of human beings.
Let's start by defining the three. What is science? Human beings have both rationality and sensibility, and I believe that science is the most rational way for human beings to explore the truth, to assume a theory through observation, analysis, thinking, and calculations, and then to prove or disprove it through practice in the most rigorous way, and to gradually build up the cornerstone of science.
All things have their disadvantages, the opposite is true, the end of science is not the end, as long as the Earth is not destroyed, mankind does not perish, there will never be an end, can only say that the more mankind develops, the faster the disappearance of resources on the planet, the faster the disappearance of the Earth's resources, the faster the demise of mankind, so we must know how to know the thin water, long time flow. It is like using the most primitive fishing methods, fishery resources will not be depleted so quickly, but with modern fishing methods, I see the result is that the children and grandchildren of the fish are playing up, although the efficiency has increased, the efficiency has increased, but the resources are depleted, if the resources are not there, what is the use of science is more developed? Human resources is also like this, the more developed science needs less people, originally 100 people to do the work, a robot to replace, and this a person robot to create the value and benefits of a very small number of people controlled by a small number of people to enjoy, and the majority of people have nothing to do with, then even if this science is again progress, there is not much significance, not only can't narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, but instead of pulling the wider because the majority of people with this "robot" and the "robots". The majority of people do not have a relationship with this "robot", whether it is the right to invent or the right to own belongs to a very small number of people.
Unless the wealth created by the "robot" can be shared, even if it can't be evenly distributed, at least a piece of cake can be shared to savor it, if that's the case, the more science progresses, the more it contributes to mankind, or only a few people have contributed. It is like relying on scientific and technological means to catch so much raw seafood every year, and in the end, on whose stomach? Can the poor afford to eat it? Nowadays, medicine is very advanced, with all kinds of advanced and large-scale medical equipment, as well as all kinds of sophisticated and small-scale medical instruments, and all kinds of expensive medicines, can the poor afford to see a doctor? Can the poor afford to be hospitalized? Therefore, the development of science must be matched with the existing conditions and capabilities of the people in order to be reasonable, just like how many years ago the helicopter was invented, and there are private airplanes, may I ask how many people in the world have the ability to fly on private airplanes? And private yachts? The same applies to motorcycles. The Dodge Tomahawk has long been designed and tested, reaching a speed of 676 kilometers per hour, but it has not been mass-produced because it does not match with the standard of living of the general public and the road conditions, so what is the point of designing it? Besides, there are still a lot of families in the world can not afford to buy a car, even if every family can buy a car, then another problem comes, that is, too congested, sedans such as snails in the slow crawl, have become a reptile, in the city's roads is not as fast as riding a bicycle it was in order to be convenient, but instead inconvenient, and even turned into a tool to show off.
The building is also so, the more developed technology to cover the higher, but people are living upstairs, but also lost the convenience of a single house, and is not grounded, I now live in the eighth floor, not up to the sky, not down to the ground, always feel suspended in mid-air. Recently, I read a news story that scientists have discovered another new method that is expected to extend human life to 400 years. Then at that time I thought, even if it can be extended to 400 years old one day, how much money is needed for each year of extension? That's for the super rich, the poor would be lucky if they just don't shorten it, and they are still doing this and that all day long. Even if one day mankind can go to Mars and the moon and travel or live there, that is also for the super-rich, if the majority of civilians can't get up there, what's the point? Maybe some people say, you can mine the resources above, then I want to ask, even if there are a lot of resources above, not transported down is not in vain, enough freight money? Even if it can be transported down, those who do not participate in the mining will not be able to share the wealth brought by the "Martian resources" and "lunar resources", isn't it also for nothing? So it turns out that the end of science is a contradiction.
The end of science is theology
I have thought y about this issue, and I'm still a real atheist
A simple example, grab a handful of soil, think carefully, where does the soil come from, the modern scientific explanation is that the soil is the earth, the earth is an explosion, what explosion, I do not know, how to explode, I do not know, that the material from where it came from, I do not know
The end of science is a contradiction in terms, but the end of science is theology
The end of science is a contradiction in terms.
In a simple example, human civilization for thousands of years, there has not been any scientific research to explore the mechanism of life, and finally summarized that life is composed of different souls at the core, which is not theism
The current scientific superstitions of the uniqueness of human beings, people really is the only one, in my opinion, there are people who exist, the stronger than the species of human beings should exist, but the current universe is still at the stage of exploration of the universe, the only thing is that there is a lot of space to explore the universe. Only the current exploration of the universe is still in the stage of astronomical telescope, that is, nothing to see
At this point, someone said, that mankind's landing on the moon is a leap forward, this thing in my opinion, the product of the Cold War period of posing for the camera, the capsule even if it really landed on the moon, there is not enough fuel and the air required to generate enough thrust to get out of the moon's gravitational pull to fly back to the decades ago, the camera, the video recorder how
The current science of mankind, in my opinion, is based on three foundations: conservation of matter, conservation of energy, and 1+1=2. However, since the first day of my study of this subject, I have disagreed with this point of view, and I feel that matter is not conserved, nor is energy, and that 1+1 is not equal to 2, and I can't argue effectively
After a long period of reflection, I have come to a The first thing I did was to find out that the Earth's atmosphere is not an absolute vacuum, and that the Earth's atmosphere will remain in the universe as it rotates, and will be sucked away by the presence of a greater gravitational force, so that the water on the Earth will be gone after a number of years, and will become the appearance of a few of our neighbors in the solar system
After the constant exploration of mankind, the planets used to have water, and then disappeared for unknown reasons, and perhaps there was once life, and the human race is not unique.
All human knowledge is worthless in front of a black hole. Maybe it's the same as in Star Trek, when someone enters a black hole one day, they will be able to understand the secrets of creation.
The modern science is called applied science, which is a way to understand the laws of matter and to utilize them, without any ability to create things, so where does matter come from?
Finally, there is a great being who creates everything, and the corresponding laws, is the most reasonable explanation, that is, "the end of science is theology", as a particularly simple example, "electronic games", where we are This is a very serious matter, perhaps we are a member of the "game" created by a more advanced civilization?
"Man is better than God" is a very arrogant and conceited statement in my opinion. As I have traveled more and more places, I feel more and more that "God is better than man", and man is just a mole cricket that can be crushed to death at any time in the presence of nature. For example, China's: Confucius and Mencius Confucianism, Laozi Zhuangzi Taoism, Han Fei Li Si Legalism, Zou Yan created the yin and yang, as well as domestic and foreign Buddhism, foreign Catholicism, etc., are "to me as the center" of the purpose of the card is idealism, no scientific reasoning can be said.
In short, the world is a big, complicated, and strange place, which is known to everyone on earth. This also should be Mr. Pingwa's words "ugly to the extreme is beautiful" philosophy. You are right?
Scientific activity, is a form of human survival and evolutionary process of operation, is the power source of continuous progress of society, the whole process of scientific activities are accompanied by human existence, so the conclusion is that the day of human non-existence, is the end of science.
The end of science is the demise of the earth and the destruction of mankind.
Or the emergence of new life forms - aliens.
Otherwise, there is no end to science.
There is no end to science because there is no end to the succession of karmic fruits.
Science has completed a phase of its work by understanding the law of science, the "law of karma", which is the reincarnation of life with karma. In relieving people's fear of death, scientific research has also made an extremely important contribution.
The end of science is philosophy, and to grasp the true meaning of philosophy requires a scientific mind, while theology is essentially subjective idealism, is superstition.
Who close to the same path origin is what! Can not use the words of the times delusion guess! Unlimited time conquest get through distant! Let nature take its course is the path is the cornerstone! (Title; Taoist origin)