Order in chaos? How can this be? I was reading a book chaos from which I was enlightened with the knowledge of seeing order in chaos. Something as random as the fluctuation of the economy of a country could be looked as a chaotic field and hence through a certain mistake found by Edward Lorenz that dynamic systems are dependent on the initial conditions of the system. This was an eye opener to me as its application was finding out the future conditions of the economy was made possible.

I had not known anything about theory of relativity. I knew it had something to do with relative motion of objects but after coming to school I learnt that it has to do with particle moving with speeds near to the speed of light. I learnt that when objects move fast time slows down for them to an observer in rest. This was a revelation to me. The formulas and theories used made a lot of sense once I read and understood the chapter. I was excited to know that I could understand such a phenomenon without external aid.

Another thing that was an eye opener to me was that I learned that physics that I learned earlier was shattered by the development of quantum physics. Particle without mass had momentum. Not only that but the very nature of particle and waves interchanged which could not be defined by classical physics.

The media source claims the Iran is engaged in the creation of nuclear weapons and the USA wants answers. This article is completely biased towards the USA. The author of the article subtly shows his contempt for Iran. I feel that the article does not look at Iran’s point of view and makes accusations against the country.

The author also makes a generalization on how the Iran has always ‘defended its right to continue its nuclear program’ supporting this statement with only one instance. This bias can be looked at from the author’s point of view by saying that USA and Iran have ha certain issues in the past since the Iranian Revolution. However this does not give the author the right to only talk about the Iran’s failure to address the nuclear issue. This article is like propaganda to turn its readers against Iran. The author has only used confirmation bias to support his accusation on Iran.

However through evidence in the article, I can say that Iran is using vague language to delay or evade the talk about the nuclear deal. Due to this Hillary Clinton seems to show some agitation and frustration and wants a ‘head on’ answer from Tehran. Iran is clearly evading the question put forth by the USA on the nuclear deal by saying that it wants to discuss about certain issues but does not mention about the nuclear deal. The USA has taken up this issue with the United Nations so that they get an answer but at the same time telling the world to be scared of Iran. I feel the USA is trying to divide the world just like it did in the Cold War. But doing this however there is a lot of potential for another outbreak for war and could be known as World War 3.

Nuclear energy should be used for creation of power and not war. It was the USA who had originally built the destructive weapon and used it on Japan. From that time on, countries have been stock piling such weapons as if preparing for another world war. The issue for accumulation of weapons has been a major cause for countries. War does not only kill people and damage property but also cause economic decline in the countries. This issue is a very important and is it rational and ethical to stockpile such weapons. Is there really need for armies to protect us? Such matters need to be discussed to earth as whole and not with certain countries. Science has turned from being used to advance mankind into a one-way ticket for mankind to be bombed back to the stoneage.

the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history

No one knows where is Hitler after he fled. However we do know the atrocities he committed against the Jews, against mankind. The amount of damage and destruction both mental and physical because of the wars is unaccountable. Mankind has learned that nothing good comes out from war. There is no one right or wrong in war. There is no one right or wring in history. History is the view of different people complied into a document. G.W.F. Hegel’s saying ‘ the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history’ applies to some things concerning history but not all.

We learn a lot from history, whether it is something as big as the discovery of an atom or something as small as a method of recycling of paper, we learn a lot from history. History teaches us the existences of different tribes, their culture and hence their origin. We can learn where we came from through historical evidences of different tribes. It is not allowed for women to get up from their bed for forty days after they have given birth to a child in Hinduism. This is not related to the religion it self but history. Since the woman is still healing she was not allowed to get up from her bed in the past. This was slowly modified into the religion it self, and even though the new generation may not know it, they still follow it. We are incorporating history into our daily lives an are constantly learning from it. Gunpowder was used by the Japanese in the early 5^th century and is still used now in fire works. Today’s scientists look back into history to make progress in fields like medicine and mathematics. The Vedic science of medicine and mathematics are more effective than this era’s counting and medicines.

However history itself it not reliable as there are different viewpoints each historian gives. Like in theory of relativity when two events occur at an instant of time, a person may see them occur at the same time but another person will not see it occur at the same instant of time. Neither of them are wrong but there is no right answer. Lack of methods of preserving local dialects and cultures have eroded evidences of tribes existing and left scientists to assume many events occurring in tribes. We cannot learn from what does not exist. Interpretation of certain texts is a lot of work. Even the slightest errors in translation can result in a completely wrong interpretation of the text.

One cannot always look at history to learn something. There is a clear distinction between what is half true and what is completely false. It is up to the one reading that particular historical evidence to decide whether it is true or not. One cannot sleep overnight and reason out history as mathematics.