Proof

In our conscios observations we observe many things in the real world. We make deductions or meanings of what we

observe. But when it comes to prove the world these new meanings and deductions it becomes difficult unless and

untill we state the majority of numbers. For eg. if we see that when it comes to proofs of any real thing we either

prove it by numbers or statistics or we prove it using eternal proofs of others to get generalized patterns.

In case of general acceptance we prove things using statistics or general vote. But at times a simple statement bsed

on the logical statements that exist already helps in building over our own deductions with the support of the

existing deductions. For example if there is a bridge to be built the engineer uses an existing strong obsejct to

support the bridge. he may use the land or the mountains and put his pillars inside it to make those pillars stable.
But then waht matters is that once these pillars are stable on the dependency of other stable things then what

importance and how much importance does the other stable thing lay in the remaining process of life time of the

bridge.

We observe in the real world. We see patterns repeating we see things happening. Once we do we need two things,

first an ability to describe or express the meaning that we make. This can happen either by use of words or by use

of picture. Once expressed the world can belive in it only if u relate it to numbers or u relate it to. The art of

majority works here. A natural tendency of human beings to belive in majority. By the system of majority if it

happens for many people it must be happening for me.
So conscious observations and their deduced meanings may or may not be accepted by the society, but what needs to be

adjudged is how and why this acceptance can change the way we world exists.becoz if it cant be applied somewhere the

observation and the deduction remains alone in the domain of unknown. Although it has been observed many times that

it lays the pillars to new understandings. Hence the newer understandings can then be supported using existing

understandings or deductions. This could then create a new land of its own.
Fundamental sciences like physics were born in this manner only. And still if the basic rules are shaken the whole

system shakes. Becoz the others over the existing exist in the strenght of the exisitng.
What is interesting is that even if the meanings are challenged and shaken and rebuilt. The core application in the

brief period when they were built exist.
So for example for any moment X if Y was true and considering the truth of Y a new device/ technology/ anything was

made and it ran... then it becomes interesting when some new Z is found which says that Y is false what happens to

the device that was made with Y as truth. It surely does not stop functioning.
If that is the case then we can question the existance of proving Y in the first case. Or even proving Z.

It should also be observed that Z is considered only becoz Y was existing. Or else Z would have become Y in the

first place. So Z exists becoz Y exists. Hence existance of a technology due to Y is very much plausible.

Phew....i dunno how i can prove what i just said....and i dont know if i need to...becoz at this momemnt its the

truth for me....becoz i realised it....
I know if i put things outside i may have to prove this using the exisitng theories. ...which then may compare what

i just said with what exists. ....and may end up proving that my premise is either stated already or is not

supported by the theories that exist. What is more interesting to me now is that i myself am some how negating what

i wrtote above. If i consider that my theory is the uniquemost then it is Y according to my theory., Hence i should

be accepted. But i wont be becoz for me to be accepted i need another theory or a counter theory to be proven wrong.
Or i may need a general consensus on this theory that is statis tics....or i may have to apply this theory. But if i

apply this theory it may depend on what exists in other theories...that means it will depend on theories that have

already been applied.. So my Y becomes my Z . Tat takes us to the begining of the universe becoz that is whre there

was no theory existing. But again how can we prove that theory if it exists...so i think its a mega cycle....which

will go on and on and on.....all we can do is keep making new meanings....and see if we can apply it....


......i dunno what i have written up there...and have no proof wat so ever to prove it right...