“We can simulate the candidate universe for billions of steps. But we don’t know what it’s going to do – and whether it’s going to grow up to be like our universe, or completely different. […] And it’s not at all obvious that we’ll be able to construct any kind of descriptive theory, or effective physics. But in a sense the problem is bizarrely similar to the one we have even in systems like neural networks: there’s computation going in there, but can we identify ‘conceptual waypoints’ from which we can build up a theory that we might understand? It’s not at all clear our universe had to be understandable at that level, and it’s quite possible that for a very long time we’ll be left in the strange situation of thinking we might have ‘found our universe’ out in the computational universe, but not being sure. Of course, we might be lucky, and it might be possible to deduce an effective physics, and see that some little program that we found ends up reproducing our whole universe. It would be a remarkable moment for science. But it would immediately raise a host of new questions – like why this universe, and not another?”

In “A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics” by Stephen Wolfram, Jonathan Gorard, Max Piskunov

I couldn’t put it better myself Stephen.
After last year’s “Adventures of a Computational Explorer”, another Wolfram book is out. And this one is all about Wolfram’s First Love: Physics!
We often hear about all those fantastic tools in science. But they are always presented as very trivial, basic things, like a stone axe or something. They work, period. Planck measures tiny little differences in temperature, LIGO measures the miniscule changes caused by gravitational waves, and scientists shoot one electron at a time in the dual slit experiment, etc., etc. But how?
I’ll always love people working on stuff without submitting to outside "experts" until it's done (Wolfram’s is not a theory; I’d call it a framework). Some will say Wolfram may not have what many would insist are "credentials" to pursue the answers, but I can assure you that true brilliance is a lonely thing. Besides the peer-review in place nowadays in the Physics community is bollocks as I’ve written elsewhere. Our current scientific research establishments are not searching for answers, and certainly do not permit or accept them from outside. Today science is the search for the unknowable, not the unknown... for the unknowable is a fountain of fortune (funding), and is guarded by armed consensus, not objective discovery. Wolfram, don't be discouraged if your goal is to know. Just know that they will get you if you ruin their game... so just know until it's safe to know, you know? The problem with peer review is not that it is too rigorous or is not rigorous enough; it’s the type of rigor and by whom. Circular referencing among the gated institutions to appease embedded growth obligations is not healthy. I can’t find Wolfram’s h-index, but is it important? Sean Carrol has twice the h-index of Micchio Kaku (22) but Sean’s is 54 compared to a real heavyweight in the metric like Karl Friston at 230. That would tell me he is clearly on the side of popularizer vs actual research. But I don’t buy the metric as worth much. I hope people who don’t like what Wolfram is doing would also argue the Peter Higgs didn’t deserve a Nobel because his h-index was only 11. 20 publications. He was clearly correct and those who use his h-index against him getting the Nobel are THE PROBLEM in the community.
The issue that somewhat bothers me is that it is possible, when theorising about a very complex subject in which there are many unknowns, to construct a theory that adds up in terms of the perceived variables but is nevertheless mistaken. What is described in the book is a 'closed system' centred on the concept of an Evolutive Hypergraph, and it appears possible that other mechanisms might lie beyond this particular frame, and could have massive implications for this interpretation. Indeed, it's hard to see how that issue could ever be resolved... as I was learning tree structures in computing in college I kept pondered why there weren’t network (graph) structures. And once our computers became capable there are. Wolfram tackles the intellectual fun of starting every system design with just two objects and inheriting from there, and adding recursive network traversals of infinite depth (though I am still plagued by the difficulty of representing an n-dimensional network on a 2-dimensional screen. Or at least interpreting it once it’s there.) Just about everything I look at can be modelled as a network. Why not everything I haven’t thought of a la Wolfram? My earliest experience of networks was in manually calculating critical paths in college. And the realisation that network nodes and links were interchangeable (as Gantt or PERT representations). Mentally turning a network inside out is more fun than mental arithmetic of course. Music and books and maps, etc. are simply networks of notes and letters and roads, etc. Just different representations on the page. At some abstract level there is no difference in modelling a car, the crystal lattice in its components, or the sub-atomic particles. According to Wolfram, space is such a graph, i.e., the universe we perceive is a function of the hypergraph, in other words, space isn’t the nodes or even the pattern of the nodes, i.e., space, and everything in it, is a result of the continuing evolution of the pattern of the nodes of the hypergraph. Wolfram tries reaching for specific examples in the book but there’s still a lot of work to do (e.g., does Evolutive Hypergraph violate Bell’s theorem or not?). As soon as I finished it, it’s quite clear and we can all agree on needing a more fundamental theory where the rest of physics ‘just happens’ - because physics in reality ‘just happens’.
At this juncture in time, maybe using Cellular Automata and Information Theory is just like using vibrating strings to explain stuff. Or maybe not. Of course String Theory is still not Physics - in fact String Theory is not even a science. Not yet anyway just like Cellular Automata Theory is not. String Theory is a Mathematical Philosophy as it stands today - a discipline of the Arts, like music. Physics itself is the least complex of scientific disciplines. As you move from physics to Chemistry the degree of complexity increases significantly. Same thing occurs when you move from chemistry to biology to physiology to psychology to economics etc. It’s the reason why predictions are easiest in Physics and near impossible in economics or psychology. I think Wolfram is right; we should concentrate on solving problems. The idea of looking for a Grand Unification Theory is based on the immensely arrogant assumption that we have the parts almost right. The reason that QM and GR won't work together is because either one of them or both are incorrect. I suspect that there are also flaws in the conception we have of the fundamental forces. After all, the laws describing gravity and the electric force have the same form while there are no such laws for the strong and weak force suggesting they are not of the same nature. Our existing cosmology has never had fewer free parameters than measurements and is constantly challenged by observation it didn't predict. We seem to be a long way from unification. Maybe millions spent on proper research trying to actually test our theories rather than billions seeking to confirm them might dampen the hubris a bit.
In my mind, a "theory of everything" is an unattainable dream and the reason is very simple: any theoretical modeling of a sufficiently "complex" model will be intrinsically incomplete, exactly in the same sense as the Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. The search of a theory of everything in Physics is a reflection of the dogmatism and complacency pervading academy today. Reality is extremely rich and the recent results from mathematical logic and the history of science clearly point to the idea that in any "niche" of reality you always will find "emergent" properties that cannot be derived from any existing model of that "niche": these are the new independent facts that are not reducible to any existing assumptions, exactly as the parallel axiom is independent of the rest of the axioms in Euclidean geometry. And this intrinsic incompleteness of theoretical models is a very positive result as new generations of scientists always will have new things to study and that recurrent dream of many seating "experts" that there is really nothing new to discover (as Lord Kelvin for example) is always a reflection of their lack of perspective, dogmatism, complacency and not learning the history of science lessons.
There is no fire that lights itself. There is no getting rid of brute facts. The best that a theory of everything can hope for is to minimize the number of brute facts so that, given a bare minimum, fundamental forces and particles and constants arise logically. The goal is elegance, doing a lot with a little, not an ultimate explanation for why things have to be the way they are. The hope for that sort of revelation is misplaced. Please also read "The Concept of Physical Law" by Norman Swartz and convince yourself that there is no such thing as physical necessity, only logical necessity. The universe is completely contingent. Logically necessary conclusions about the world are based either on contingent posteriori premises or they are completely sterile. We know for certain, without leaving our chair that "it will either rain or not rain tomorrow". But we haven't actually said anything about the weather tomorrow.
I want to theorize that the "grid" or "granularity" of spacetime has an uncertainty. After reading Wolfram’s book I’m still not sure whether a “Network Space “, as a concept, fits into a rigid lattice or not… but all things actually fall into some kind of Planck uncertainty that is a superposition between one grain and another or the neighboring grains. In the form of an amount of being in one or the next. Not to mention lambda and the uncertainty that has to do with expansion when there are supposedly these "grains" of Planck volumes. I think that means that it may be possible that the Planck boundary (grain boundary of the universe at the smallest scale) is able to be located with an uncertainty of 1. (And then what is 1 - 1/lambda, and how might you look at that for the De Broglie wavelength of a unit of spacetime 1 of the Planck’s constant.. with an energy (mass) lambda) and what would that mean in relation to lambda and how might that affect things to arise with formulas and calculations that lead us then to working formulas that would explain things like Surface Plasmon Polaritons interacting with light and basically everything. Across the surface of an interface which is however smooth, atomically bumpy. There really isn't any point in this other than to say well there is kinetic energy and space time and the granularity has an uncertainty that has to come to some outcome. Even with single photons but might have to do with quantum theory. But also it is related to the fact that you can shine a laser across the moon or space and that could travel faster than light in the form of information which is interesting causally as well but has to work out in our observable universe with the granular theory and the idea of Planck’s constant. When younger, I became fascinated with the Planck scale. However in the ontology vs. epistemology debate I reject the Copenhagen definition of the wavefunction as the "basic physical entity", and instead view space/time phase as the basic physical entity. We understand so little about the emergence of particles at zero point, and I'm grateful for Hawking for his interpretation, limited as it is to 'black holes'. I had focused instead at questioning the big bang and examining the concept there and now at Planck, and hadn't considered before Hawking massive 'black holes'. However I too see emergence of space/time as a continuous process, and simplify matter as the potential energy for a point to return to zero point. Examining more closely these emergent particles would tell us a great deal about space/time, and whether my hypothesis is true, with regard to phase. IMO it goes without saying that we don't have the resolution nor the technology to measure phase, and would we do so, we would find that the fine structure of the wavefunction to be infinitely resolvable, but unresolvable with respect to time. We haven't focused on acute resolution of phase in technology; but mathematics can do it if we know an initial condition. The issue is that wavefunctions can constructively and deconstructively interfere. And as mentioned above, at Planck level and accepting the scale of Planck defining a wavefunction, phase plays a role on the phase of the local neighborhood. At this level, and the further we expand the neighborhood to include any wavefunction that could interfere, we run into the influencing cosmology factor, even if we limit that influence to the speed of light; which as a fixed constant called into question by entanglement experiments. To clarify, I accept the speed of light as a constant; however limited by the parametrics of our current understanding of space/time itself. This is where the observer comes in. We each contribute our own actions and observations to local space/time. And we discover that the future is mutable. At times and conditions it is possible to observe local events prior to their occurrence, and interfere. While this appears obvious on a physical level such as catching or missing a thrown baseball. What is not so obvious are the limits of the observer to see future events. And, because we lack this understanding, even to the point of refuting the possibility and thus it goes in part unexamined, we are left only with anecdotal evidence that some observations extend to personal awareness of the mutability of time, specifically the future.
If Space is indeed quantized, then the lattice-QCD model could be closer to truth than just a numerical method to remove infinities. The problem is, how can space time be quantized, granular, atomic or appear in discrete values at the Planck length? What would be between the discrete values? What are these atoms made out of? It can't be nothing, since these spacetime atoms wouldn't exist at all since nothing can possibly be inside nothing. The other alternative would be that it is spacetime itself but this would contradict their atom-like structure because there wouldn't be any place for the atoms to lay in between. Or maybe, this is the case but interactions can't take place with the upper units and making them an own irreducible system with entropy.
Will Evolutive Hypergraph Theory be like String Theory? Only time will tell. But kudos to Wolfram, Gorard, and Piskunov to have a go at it (incidentally is Max Piskunov related to N. Piskounov, whose “Differential and Integral Calculus, Vol. I and II” I used in college?). ( )

We are barely out of the period where we thought the Earth perched on the back of a turtle, was flat, was at the center of the universe and that we had discovered everything there was to discover without even knowing about atoms. Do we now suddenly know enough to be able to propose a unified theory of physics and therefore the universe? Do we now know every particle and its role?

Stephen Wolfram has a kind of workaround for those questions. Decades ago, he got waylaid by the potential of computers and the joys of discovery and invention in that field. Now, having just turned 60, he is coming back to his roots (He published his first physics paper at 15), throwing the doors wide open to tackle the holy grail – the underlying, fundamental theory of physics that dictates how the universe works, why it looks and works the way it does, and where it goes from here.

In his nearly 800 page announcement, called A Project To Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics, Wolfram expresses his delight to be able to do this now. He says had he tried decades ago, he would not have had the tools to launch or succeed in this effort. He created those tools himself, for other purposes. And along the way, he picked up a better understanding of what he faces: “We won’t be able to get even close to running those models for as long as the universe does. And at the outset it’s not clear that we’ll be able to tell enough from what we can do to see if it matches up with physics.”

He drops some important hints as to what has changed in his mind:
-“General relativity and quantum mechanics are basically the same thing.” This solves a huge conflict in modeling, and Wolfram “proves” it using simplified examples of causal invariance that by definition, end up branching back to the same state. This conveniently eliminates any potential conflicts.
-“I have an estimate that says that 10200 times more ‘activity’ in the hypergraph that represents our universe is going to ‘maintaining the structure of space’ than is going into maintaining all the matter we know exists in the universe.” So the universe is largely on maintenance.
Let those points guide your own theory attempts.

The book is about the fundamentals of modeling. He shows with great simplicity that a rule for a variable produces astoundingly complex images if repeated often enough. The book is festooned with an immense variety of results, from the basic rule to the first simple iterations, the point where before or after the very next step takes it into a new level, and then a 3D model of the result. If only for the graphics, the book is gorgeous. Wolfram makes great use of color to show what has changed from iteration to iteration, how structures differ, and to highlight what he talks about.

It is also an inspiration. If such simple rules (For every occurrence of AB, substitute BA) produce such sophisticated structures, there must be a way to structure a universe somewhere in there. In typical Wolfram fashion, he is opening up the treasure chest of tools and data to all comers. His meetings are livestreamed and recorded. He is making the collection of rules experiments, called notebooks, available to all, and allowing anyone to create their own using his tools. One way or another, Wolfram would love to see someone make a major breakthrough in the ultimate quest of physics. Starting with this book is a pleasant way to begin.

It could have been dauntingly technical, but Wolfram has made it appealing to all comers. Readers do not have to absorb the formulas or ponder the origins of the universe to enjoy it. The sections are color coded with tabs on the outer corners. It is actually a fast read. My only complaints are tiny type and graphics (This is the first book I have read with magnifying glass handy instead of a search engine), and paper so thin that images from the back side of the page are clearly interfering.

For this project to work, Wolfram simplifies by saying he thinks the universe is just a computer, carrying out formulas and rules. It’s all routine and predictable. He says the only thing special in the universe is ourselves.

David Wineberg ( )