SABINE HOSSENFELDER BEGINS TO UNDERSTAND WOLFRAM RE: Sabine, (all): First, thank

SABINE HOSSENFELDER BEGINS TO UNDERSTAND WOLFRAM
RE: https://t.co/pZuiVvaC1R

Sabine, (all):
First, thanks for paying attention to Wolfram’s work. Unfortunately he’s not exactly the best proponent of it – and for reasons other computer scientists likely understand.
In this video, I think you’re close, but you’re missing the point of continuousness (mathematics) vs discreteness (computation). The universe is and must be discrete at all levels – even if we are yet unable to observe those operations, with mathematical descriptions a mere utility for human understanding of it’s observable manifestations.
For example, there is no aspect of Einstein’s general relativity is compatible with discreteness. In fact his ‘sophistry’ of unifying space and time – two different properties – was a useful contrivance precisely because at the level of precision GR proposes, using mathematical generalization avoided solving the problem of discreteness.
Why? Continuousness describes CORRELATION and Discreteness describes CAUSATION.
What wolfram is saying is that he can use adversarial constructive logic to identify causation even if we cannot observe it directly.
-Cheers, CurtD, NLI
@skdh , @stephen_wolfram