So, now we have created these mental tools called mathematics that are heavily constrained. Then we create models that are approximately map 1:1 to some patterns that exist in reality (IE patterns that are roughly local so that we can call them objects). Due to the fact that our mental tools have heavy constrains and that we iteratively adjust these models to fit reality at focal points, we can approximately predict reality, because we already mapped the constrains into the model. But we shouldn't mistake model for the reality. Map is not territory.

I've once saw a demo of an AI photo editing app that displays sliders next to light sources on a photo and you are able to dim/brighten the individual light sources intensity this way. This feels to me like a next level of the user interface.

Sometimes we want to model something in real life and try to use math for this - this is physics.

But even then, the model is not real, it's a model (not even a 1:1 one on top of that). It usually tries to capture some cherry picked traits of reality i.e. when will a planet be in 60 days ignoring all its "atoms"[1]. That's because we want to have some predictive power and we can't simulate whole reality. Wolfram calls these selective traits that can be calculated without calculating everything else "pockets of reducability". Do they exist? Imho no, planets don't fundamentally exist, they're mental constructs we've created for a group of particles so that our brains won't explode. If planets don't exist, so do their position etc.

The things about models is that they're usually simplifications of the thing they model, with only the parts of it that interest us.

Modeling is so natural for us that we often fail to realize that we're projecting. We're projecting content of our minds onto reality and then we start to ask questions out of confusion such as "does my mind concept exist". Your mind concept is a neutral pattern in your mind, that's it.

[1] atoms are mental concepts as well ofc

Is it self awarness? There are animals that can recognize themselves in mirror, I don't think all of them have a form of proto-language.

``` type MyGeneric = ...; type HigherOrderGeneric = TParam extends string ? MyGeneric : never;

type Hey = HigherOrderGeneric;

```

There are libraries that try to achieve this through some hacks, tho their ergonomics are really bad.

People are also highly unpredictable, so it is usually a matter of trial and error, very often their feedback may completely erase wide sets of assumptions you were building your product around.

It's borderline impossible to do it on mature product, but rewriting mature product to something faster is not borderline impossible - it's just very hard.

Note that it doesn't apply if you just program something in accordance from an rfc where everything is predefined.