If more developers cared about versioning their software appropriately based on incompatible changes or stability guarantees, it would significantly reduce the costs of maintaining OS software distributions and providing integrated software stacks to users.
Encoding intelligence (beyond, perhaps, simple sequence) in version numbers for software is fundamentally folly.
Encoding intelligence about compatibility in version numbers of APIs is only folly to the extent that "proper engineering discipline has not been applied when managing the stability and/or backwards-compatibility of shared interfaces."
Confusing what makes sense with software and what makes sense with APIs is as problematic as any other confusion of interface with implementation.
The purpose of libraries is generally to provide an API to one or more consumers.
I'm talking about versioning as applied to the library, as a representative of a set of interfaces provided.
Not as some sort of runtime detection mechanism.
But they don't. And you're not going to be able to make them. And even if you did, people would disagree about what constitutes compatibility, stability, and engineering disciplin. One man's "breaking change" is another man's "that was an implementation detail". It's not possible to get this right, since first you need to define "right". That's why versioning is folly.