I take it seriously because it echoes a sentiment I've seen expressed previously. If you're interested, I believe this post outlines the idea: https://blog.step

I take it seriously because it echoes a sentiment I've seen expressed previously. If you're interested, I believe this post outlines the idea: https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2018/11/logic-explainability-and-the-future-of-understanding/ https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2018/11/logic-explainability... The tl;dr is that physics is not necessarily explainable, however much you want it to be. So it's very possible that the underlying phenomena of reality is simply out of reach of theories (i.e. it's incompressible). > That's tantamount to saying that his theory is not based on data, logic, or even sound reasoning, and cannot be proven. Pretty much the definition of a crackpot theory. You misunderstood the post I think. It's not proposing a theory, or even a crackpot one. It's saying that maybe the underlying phenomena is out of reach of theories.