>>433
>Even science has violations to their own laws or principles because nature doesn't hold a 100% perfection or order,even in the most perfect of the possible conditions.
The way I perceive it it's more of a "you cannot grasp it's true form" kind of thingy.
Like, all the "laws of nature" and the nature descriptions we've come up with, are just conclusions from theoretical models which agree with empirical evidence the best.
When new evidence surfaces, that contradicts current model predictions we either refine it, so it can describe and predict all the events it could plus the newly found evidence, or just make up a new closest description of reality that matches the data best.

Take for instance, the Aristotelian idea of motion was based on empirical observations, an could describe why things happen, but it did not lend itself to extension, and contrary evidence was found, thus people found a better model of description of reality.
Same with Newtonian mechanics and Galileo transform, etc. etc.
Also the fact that both of those are still taught in schools isn't because "omfg teachers are lying to students". It's because under certain assumptions and restrictions those models still describe reality well, it's just that their domain of things they can describe accurately got shrunken down.

Thus, coming back on track after this quite large digression, it may well be that we will never be able to find 100% on spot model that makes perfect predictions, it's also conjectured such model can't exist. Because, the question if nature hold 100% perfection of order, is of course unanswered.

>However, who can define the absloute truth?
I'd wager that nobody can, since there is no such thing. All our knowledge of universe stems from the axioms, which can propably as close to absolute truth as we can ever get.
The Münchhausen trilemma describes this very neatly.

Epistemology and ontology are my favourite branches of philosophy, but even still my immerssion in the topics is pretty shallow and entry level.