You're spreading antiscientific misinformation with your claim that Freeman Dyson asserts that we don't have a good explanation for why bicycles don't topple. T

You're spreading antiscientific misinformation with your claim that Freeman Dyson asserts that we don't have a good explanation for why bicycles don't topple. The linked article doesn't support that claim. What Dyson says is that it's hard to design a technological artifact, like a bycicle, from scratch, using theory only. We know perfectly how and why it works, but it's very hard to design something the behavior of which is actually governed cleanly by the fundamental explanatory principles in predictable ways. That doesn't make the principles of the explanation wrong: it's recognizing that reality is incredibly messy. It's about how hard technology is, not about science.