That first question is a tautology. It’s like asking “Why is a screwdriver so perfect for turning screws?”

We have discovered a method (calculus) to mathematcally describe continuous functions of various sorts and within calculus there is a particular toolbox (differential and partial differential equations) we have built to mathematically describe systems that are changing by describing that change.

The fact that systems which change are well-described by the thing we have made to describe systems which change shouldn’t be at all surprising. We have been working on this since the 18th century and Euler and many other of the smartest humans ever devoted considerable effort to making it this good.

When you look at things like the chaotic behaviour of a double pendulum, you see how the real world is extremely difficult to capture precisely and as good as our system is, it still has shortcomings even in very simple cases.

As an aside, here's a relevant video about the (sometimes not) chaotic nature of double pendulums: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtjb2OhEQcU

What ought to be surprising is that the "thing" itself doesn't change.

A learning that describes chaos well enough may not want to be associated with "calculus", or even "math" (ask a friendly reverse mathematician about that)

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2021/04/09/period-three-impli...

Somewhat tangentially, if Ptolemy I had responded (to Euclid) with anything less specific ---but much more personal--- than "check your postulate", we wouldn't have had to wait one millennium.

(Fermat did the best he could given margin & ego, so that took only a century or so (for that country to come up with a workable strategy))

Less tangentially, I'd generalize Quigley by mentioning that groups of hominids stymie themselves with a kind of emergent narcissism. After all, heuristics,rules and even values informed by experience & intuition are a sort of arrogance. "Tautology" should be outlawed in favour of "Narcissism" as a prosocial gaslighting term :)