What Wolfram is saying, and has always said, is vacuous in the extreme. There is more new science in 't Hooft's book about Quantum Mechanics as Cellular Automat

What Wolfram is saying, and has always said, is vacuous in the extreme. There is more new science in 't Hooft's book about Quantum Mechanics as Cellular Automata than in all of A New Kind of Science. His stuff just amounts to large claims and a lot of fiddling around. Its certainly possible that something could come out of it (I mean the idea "physics is just some rules" is vacuously true) but I don't see in any of the work surrounding his ideas any true attempt to get to the bottom of things by trying very hard to understand basic ideas like locality and unitarity and how they must be true or may be violated by physical models which are deeper than the ones we have. If you want to see that kind of actual hard scientific work, see Nima Arkani Hamad or Gerard 't Hooft. I, personally, was a bad researcher, which is why I couldn't cut it as an academic. What made me bad was that I got lost in fiddling around rather than trying to hit the most incisive questions in the most useful ways. I see a lot of that in Wolfram.