It seems to me that A+C=B and E=mc^2 are both written in, or consistent with, that table. But widening the context produces something different in each from a probabilistic perspective. A+C=B is 100% certain with narrow context, but falsified with a little more context, while E=mc^2 is less certain with narrow context, but increasingly certain with wider context.*
*Like, this table is on a computer connected to a global network, which is based on electromagnetism, which is intimately related to relativity. The more you understand what the table is, the more certain you can be of E=mc^2.
Yes, but this is just total energy. Try kinetic energy instead. (Even Newton's Ek=0.5 * mv^2 much less Lorentz special relativity or general relativity.)
Now the model with kinetic energy plus rest energy. A network unaware of time will be unable to figure it out. Especially the differential in velocity.
What you need to actually devise such laws is generalizing conflict-driven clause learning with some good rule to pick models, name them and enumerate them.
E.g. defining minimum generalizing set of logic clauses with support for undecidable and uncomputable functions. (Which means deciding when to give up.)
This is essentially the inverse of a MAX-SAT solver. Minimax logic representation so to speak.
*Like, this table is on a computer connected to a global network, which is based on electromagnetism, which is intimately related to relativity. The more you understand what the table is, the more certain you can be of E=mc^2.