Yondu on Nostr: Thank you. Agree about present/past - factual; future - can be influenced. Agree ...

Thank you.
Agree about present/past - factual; future - can be influenced.
Agree about the imperfect models of reality which can be improved.

Respectfully disagree about the natural laws in science.
1. Math: there are definitely true/false statements, and here for the Truth with big T it can be said that it exists. As math is just the set of rules with logical connections superimposed on them, so by definition for any statement you can go back to previous theorems and finally back to axioms and see if any of the mandatory rules were broken in the process of derivation (false) or not (true).
2. Math derivatives: genetics, statistics, neurobiology etc. - same.
3. Physics, chemistry, astronomy, some part of biology and other natural sciences: There are models which are better than others; they are an approximation of what is going on in the Universe, with better or worse predictory strength. They serve the purpose of predictions and serve it well (we are using it to fly planes and rockets, dive with submarines etc.), but as any model are not covering all what is going on - only some aspects of it which are of interest for specific science. As Ptolemey's system was predicting the movement of Sun and planets well enough despite being wrong. Probably we will find out that our current "natural laws" which we consider correct will be proved wrong (better models will be found) by next generations of scientists, e.g. speed of light, corpuscular-wave dualism, theoretical physics postulates etc. All these models are possible because these natural sciences are dealing with inert (non-live) matter, objects and not subjects. All inert matter states and change of these states can be described and predicted with enough of compute power. This is so called "complicated" systems realm, which can in principle be predicted. But there is no Truth here. There are models, predicting better or worse what is going on, but they are just models, not the underlying natural laws. Newton laws and gravity is one example - this is good and useful model, but saying F=ma is Truth - is too strict IMO - we can have later better models for the same even if we don't have them now.
4. Social "sciences", psychology, complex eco-system-level biology, economy and other interpersonal or subjective treaties: Here we go into the territory of subjects and not objects, going from the realm of "complicated" systems (which can be predicted) to the realm of "complex" systems where predictions fail just because you cannot predict behaviour of complex system: any disturbancy of level lower than your sensors resolution or any non-calculable external impact can change the observable state of the complex system dramatically. Reproducible tests are impossible in principle in this realm and there are no "natural laws" here, nor any kind of general "Truth" which is the same for different subjects. You might derive some very basic and general patterns which are valid for the most of the situations in the particular slice of Reality, but not for all of them and this will change dramatically with change of viewpoint, change of subjects, change of your slice of Reality you are working with or change of time.

We may say "natural laws" are unchanging in natural sciences, as they are more or less static even if not perfectly known, in the first approximation. We definitely may say so about mathematics and its derivatives.

But not with wider application, especially when we start talking about complex systems - live beings, psycho, persons, societies etc. Here there is no Truth whatsoever.

There is probably no "hard unchanging laws" anywhere in Reality, all the laws are our models, but the Reality just is (at least per our current best knowledge if we don't go into religious views or simulation hypothesis). There is no table in the skies where G constant is deliberately chosen to be 6.67*10^-11..., this is just our interpretation of what is going on with massive bodies around us.