Re: The puzzle science is solving

Le 28/10/2024 à 16:46, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 28.10.2024 o 15:07, Python pisze:

Le 28/10/2024 à 13:05, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
It is not "how things really are".

>
I agree.
>

It is "which word sequences are good ones".

>
I disagree.  Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.

 If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms of the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics (for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct

 But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).

We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that they are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine language" in your brains.

(because evolution made sur they do)

 In some centuries  [SR] will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".

Your mistake is to deny that SR, as well as NM, are fitting very well with this line of thinking. As well as QM. Krivine addresses this in is book and articles with specific words on SR and QM in addition to NM.
BTW, SR is not a "theory of anything", neither is GR. QM in a way is, or claim to have such a goal, but, IMHO QM could be more a theory of information (or a blueprint of one) than a physical theory.