Newtonian physics/mechanics: good enough in a lot of cases.
Einstein accurate, but unnecessary in most cases.
In many cases CAP is good enough for us to have the conversation about how the system works. One can then formulate plan for when it doesn't. The fact that it's imperfect at a formal level is academically interesting, but technically irrelevant for a LOT of conversations where it has utility.
> In theoretical computer science, the PACELC theorem is an extension to the CAP theorem. It states that in case of network partitioning (P) in a distributed computer system, one has to choose between availability (A) and consistency (C) (as per the CAP theorem), but else (E), even when the system is running normally in the absence of partitions, one has to choose between latency (L) and loss of consistency (C).
People who want CAP to be profound and useful are missing the point - it just tells you some things that you might want to try to achieve are provably impossible. Just like Newton’s first law tells you things can’t accelerate without a force (duh) and the first law of thermodynamics tells you you can’t get energy out of a perpetual motion machine (duh) and the pigeonhole principle tells you if you put n things in less than n groups, at least one group has more than one thing in it (duh); CAP tells you you can’t build a distributed, partitionable data system that is 100% consistent and 100% available (duh).
It’s not that deep or profound but it is proven and it eliminates a whole class of ideas from meriting further thought because they’re demonstrably impossible. That lets us get on with making the most of what is possible.
(by the way I think you have your Newton's law order wrong, that's the second one you're referering to)
Second law gets more specific, and clarifies that the size of the acceleration is proportional to the size of the force.