This disproves the claim that making accurate predictions implies understanding. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that the model has some understanding but a model doesn’t necessarily reflect underlying truth.
This disproves the claim that making accurate predictions implies understanding. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that the model has some understanding but a model doesn’t necessarily reflect underlying truth.
Also here's Feynman ranting about why questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
There isn't a "why" the speed of light is constant and isotropic. The answers you typically see for that question is just different ways of saying the same thing; there is no causal relationship.
In the end, it just is. There are things that must be true if this is the case, and things that can't be true if this is the case.
There is not always as discoverable reason behind a physical phenomenon, but sometimes there is. Not asking why altogether isn't a good approach in my view.
But I understand your perspective.