Great stuff! I disagree with the quantum mechanics analysis though. Why wouldn't it tell us how things actually are? When talking about gravity for example, we (correctly) say that the earth IS orbiting the sun, not that it is a way to predict that if the earth is here, then it will be there next.

I would say we understand weather very well, we just can't predict it all that well. We also understand how evolution works very well, but that doesn't mean we can predict what the outcomes are in detail. I agree that finding the general principles is the important thing.

Yes, but not really the "same experiment". When we reproduce what others have been doing, it is typically a smaller part of a new experiment. We don't really do the same experiments one more time.

Do any good scientists work on reproducing other peoples papers? Can I please get grants for that? Where do I send other peoples papers, sorry, my proposals I meant?

Ahha. Data-driven life science, but only for facilitating the fun part.

What is Vibecoding?

Isn't the idea that if they succeed in formulating a theory of a "universal constructor" that that would enable us to better understand the fundamental connections between computation and physics. That something like the Church Turing hypothesis, but for all physical reactions, could be formulated?

Nanobase rocks! Thanks for this resource.