[andrewflnr]

Yeah, context-dependence is a matter of degree. However, if you rephrase the article in terms of drastically reducing context dependence, particularly eliminating physical circumstance from the context, it still says something mostly true and important.

[ukj]

There are, indeed, a lot of trivial truisms in the article.

>once you’ve matched the solution to the scenario the solution is able to produce the desired result without modification

Translation: once you have identified the context in which the "solution" is applicable then the "solution" works.

Would it even be called a "solution" if it wasn't applicable in context?

[andrewflnr]

Yeah, but it's genuinely remarkable that a solution should ever be applicable to more than one problem, other than where it was first devised. It's easy to be numb to that if you've grown up with math showing up all over the place, but that's what the "unreasonable effectiveness" thing is all about.

[ukj]

shrug it is no more; or less remarkable to me than multiple solutions existing for the same problem.

Multiple algorithms (proofs) of theorems. Multiple different theories explaining one and the same phenomenon.

The principle of equifinality is everywhere in open systems.

Only exemplified further that Logic, Programming and Mathematics are essentially three different tools for the same job.