RE: –“(Accusation:) Wolfrom has no theory”– Demonstrably false. He has a theor

RE: –“(Accusation:) Wolfrom has no theory”–

Demonstrably false. He has a theory of computation or what he would call another branch of mathematics. That theory appears successful in trial and error evolutionary computation of fundamental laws.

If he had not done it first, others would have. I know Joscha Bach and I have both stated we understood the need for this research program. Wolfram, as usual, is just ahead of the rest of us who are ahead of others so to speak.

For the spectrum, look at mainstream (math), wolfram (computation), fleming (operations) and you’ll see a spectrum of people trying to solve the problem using a spectrum of continuous to discrete operations.

And IMO, the mainstream is blocked because the universe is both (a) discrete and not continuous, and (b) consistent at all scales. Both the computationalists and the operationalists are working with discrete models. As far as I know this is the only possible method of producing a theory that is testable. There isn’t sufficient information in the mathematics to deduce a discrete construction – what we call ‘physics’. 😉

Even string theory, which I think I understand reasonably well, is likely a statistical artifact of the presumption of continuousness description, as an approximation of discrete operations at at least one if not two levels of additional disambiguation beneath the formulation – hence ten dimensions.

Cheers

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation

cc: @stephen_wolfram