[mdp2021]

Yes. But /lossful/ compression: (scientific, philosophical etc.) laws compress an abstract narration of events into that tiny, hard, fundamental, predictive detail.

(Then it depends on your concern: "Aagh, the aunt fell!" // "Oh yes, that'd be Newton")

[esquivalience]

> "Aagh, the aunt fell!" // "Oh yes, that'd be Newton"

This is totally lost on me.

[user_7832]

> This is totally lost on me.

Appears to be lossy then ;)

(Sorry, you have to admit that was too easy to not say)

[mdp2021]

Compression minimizes the representation of information.

Laws (scientific, philosophical etc.) as compression represent the common side of classes of events - an abstraction of said events, stripping the irrelevant - irrelevant to some perspective, or irrelevant in a potential Procuste's bed. So, laws are compression, but a so extremely lossful compression that the loss can be relevant.

Brutally, "there may be more to the story of the fall of an elderly than just gravitation" - also in the sense that there are details behind the event.

Laws are compression - yes, with caveats.

On a more scientific, epistemological side: Einstein extended Newton covering more exceptions (reducing the abstraction - reducing the loss).