I repeat the answer I have gave 5 years ago in another thread:

"Are there real laws in science?

Certainly not. There is nothing like precise, real laws in science at all. Laws are always ideal and can concern ideal abstract models only. In reality ideal objects doesn't exist.

In real world we can observe some irregularities. These irregularities are repetitive (mercifully). Therefore, they are regularities rather. We can describe these regularities with certain accuracy in the language of approximate models. We like to call this procedure the science. The Math is the convenient language of science.

Because the brain is definitely not an ideal object, than ideal, precise model of the brain is also not possible. Otherwise, we know that conscious process, thinking and understanding, base on calculation of similarity function (read here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_understanding_Which_neural_process_is_responsible_for_understanding ). We can calculate the value of similarity with limited precision, therefore precise results, rules or laws are impossible."

Is that helpful?

Dear Wieslaw,

I agree with your comments. "Laws" lead to mathematical models rather than nature. Frequently these models can be solved mathematically or numerically. There is widespread use of these solutions. Is that because they reveal information about nature? Are experimental "results" also based on models?

Best regards,

Thomas Carter

No, not really,

Experimental results allow you to capture selected features, properties of reality. We need to know them well enough to be able to anticipate the effects of our actions and possible threats that may arise in our environment. Natural minds capable of creating "imagin schemas" (in the sense of Lakoff) use for this purpose a drive of curiosity and the need for understanding. Curiosity is the development of the drive to explore the environment and the need for understanding protects against negative emotions in the absence of understanding such as fear, anxiety and finally the danger of psychosis and other mental illnesses. We avoid this by creating a model of the world that allows us to understand selected aspects of the observed reality.

Recently (in the last two millennia) humanity has gained trust in the mathematical descriptions of these models because the language of mathematics is the most universal, precise, unambiguous and allows the exchange of a vision of the world between people who have learned this language.

Dear Wieslaw,

Are you saying that solution of a mathematical model of an aspect of nature tells you nothing about that aspect. Why then build the model?

Are not most experiments performed to test the accuracy of some "law" or model?

Best,

Thomas

Thomas,

experiments are usually performed in two complementary purposes: detection of regularity in the behavior and properties of the matter, and checking the stability and repeatability of these behaviors to confirm, check models or hypotheses.

I'm not saying that the models do not tell us anything about the aspects of the nature. Models are to enable us to understand these aspects, for example, by predicting the behavior of matter and allowing falsification of hypotheses by further experiments and logical, inductive or deductive reasoning.

Dear Wieslaw, Thank you for this explanation. I agree.

Best,

Thomas

PS: Apparently some problems are too complex for a model or require an enormous amount of computation to solve them at the present.