I will admit to an obsessional CA phase decades ago, but even then it was clear to me that, while the universe probably does operate on repeated application of

I will admit to an obsessional CA phase decades ago, but even then it was clear to me that, while the universe probably does operate on repeated application of simple rules, there was no reason why they had to be cellular in nature. Even the development of CA based on floating point numbers, which somewhat clears up the anisotropic nature of the phenomena generated by conventional CA, still has directional preferences. CA does not seem to be great at replicating conservation principles -- and they are everywhere in physics -- and attempts to graft them on by complex interactions between glider guns or the like only highlights the fragility of the process, as even the slightest misalignment causes chaos. When you run a CA, you get expansion or contraction and are typically left with some stable/oscillating phenomena if it doesn't just keep blowing outward, and those configurations which remain are still ... fragile. In ways particles are not. Particles might come and go, but the quantities they represent linger. Where is that in CA? As to anyone who suggests they have new physics, bring us testable observations of that which would not be explicable in our current frameworks. Give us a refinement of the numbers, measurable in some fashion, to highlight a deviation from that which is predicted by the old ways. I haven't seen anything like that out of him. Perhaps a ruleset exists which would have these things, but if so, wouldn't he have mentioned it instead of just doing his usual business about Rule 30 and the like? Or are we -- and here is where, outside of ego, I get the biggest crank feelings from Wolfram -- all expected to drop everything, adopt his approach, and iterate through ever more complex configurations of CA until we find the one that somehow works? Of all of the bits in Baez's crackpot index, this is the one reliable indicator I find missing, although "10 points for each statement along the lines of 'I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations'." is in the ballpark. Everyone, drop everything and do it my way until it works!