[mhh__]

I sort of agree with both myself and yourself. This point of mine technically must be qualified when interpreted like this but I actually mean something slightly more subtle than just parameterization.

The tools of physics have a lot of implicit assumptions that guide the end result in ways that I would describe as parsimonious in terms of how much the output state space must be reduced. They are much more free, which is why they can be amazing for some very hard shit, but proving they're behaving exactly in "physical" way is very hard.

"Time is defined so that motion looks simple" is my favourite quote from MTQ for this reason. It's intuitive and yet also very physically "rigorous" in a way that people don't necessarily realize is a thing in physics beyond just using mathematics.

Maybe we can just train the AI to do the maths for us, dunno, but I think currently this tabula Rasa approach will inform the physics-y-ness. I still call it physics personally, but I don't really think it's interesting from a purely physical perspective.

There have been some works deriving conservation's laws and so on from empirical motion, which I think is very impressive at scale, but I don't know what that does for physics as opposed to the applications of said physics.

[mhh__]

That should say MTW as in Gravitation