3 ms·

This comment displays yet again the conflation between "exploratory model" and "explanatory model". This model does not purport (in its current iteration) to e

by uoaei 6y ago

This comment displays yet again the conflation between "exploratory model" and "explanatory model". This model does not purport (in its current iteration) to explain material reality. It purports to generate a theory of physics without going so far as to claim that that theory coincides with the dynamics of our universe specifically. It is taking the idea of "physical model" and abstracting it to see how flexible of a theoretical substrate can be used to demonstrate certain behaviors within the defined set of axioms which we would expect out of any model of physics, i.e., causality, limits of information propagation rates, etc. In short: it is not a theory of the physics, but just a physics.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> but just a physics Without modelling the real world, and in describing it's own rules, I think you might better describe it as a branch of mathematics, and not a physics, no?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- l33tman 6y ago
  Superstring theory is considered a branch of physics but it's in a similar position (not saying there's anything of value in the wolfram article, just saying sometimes purely theoretical frameworks can be called physics even though they have not reached a predictive or even postdictive state yet)
WJW 6y ago
Are you sure? Because https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-h... definitely implies that he believes his "hypergraph with update rules" model is how the universe actually works and what remains is to find the particular structure and update rules that describe our own universe. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very interesting model that is quite flexible and could be used for a great many things. But if we're moving the goalposts from "can we go faster than the speed of light in our own universe" to "can we go faster than the speed of light in a universe I constructed from arbitrary rules" then the result becomes much less interesting.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  It'd be weird if the guy forwarding a theory didn't believe in it. An I think there is room in between believing a framework can explain things and believing it is.
- outworlder 6y ago
  > definitely implies that he believes his "hypergraph with update rules" model is how the universe actually works and what remains is to find the particular structure and update rules that describe our own universe. This goes back to his obsession with cellular automata. There's an outstanding amount of references to "I" in your link. Great works of science usually reference the works of others...
- uoaei 6y ago
  It makes sense that the first steps toward developing a sufficiently robust theory is making sure your model can recreate the various phenomena that you are interested in modelling, no? The goal is to get to a theory that reflects the behavior of the universe, and figuring out how to emulate the various idiosyncracies inherent in how the universe evolves over time (finite speed of information propagation, etc.). Finding testable aspects of the model is only possible after actually applying the theory, seeing where it falls short, and identifying ways to validate ambiguous conclusions.

by uoaei 6y ago

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

> but just a physics Without modelling the real world, and in describing it's own rules, I think you might better describe it as a branch of mathematics, and not a physics, no?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
l33tman 6y ago
Superstring theory is considered a branch of physics but it's in a similar position (not saying there's anything of value in the wolfram article, just saying sometimes purely theoretical frameworks can be called physics even though they have not reached a predictive or even postdictive state yet)

WJW 6y ago

Are you sure? Because https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-h... definitely implies that he believes his "hypergraph with update rules" model is how the universe actually works and what remains is to find the particular structure and update rules that describe our own universe. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very interesting model that is quite flexible and could be used for a great many things. But if we're moving the goalposts from "can we go faster than the speed of light in our own universe" to "can we go faster than the speed of light in a universe I constructed from arbitrary rules" then the result becomes much less interesting.

BobbyJo 6y ago
It'd be weird if the guy forwarding a theory didn't believe in it. An I think there is room in between believing a framework can explain things and believing it is.
outworlder 6y ago
> definitely implies that he believes his "hypergraph with update rules" model is how the universe actually works and what remains is to find the particular structure and update rules that describe our own universe. This goes back to his obsession with cellular automata. There's an outstanding amount of references to "I" in your link. Great works of science usually reference the works of others...
uoaei 6y ago
It makes sense that the first steps toward developing a sufficiently robust theory is making sure your model can recreate the various phenomena that you are interested in modelling, no? The goal is to get to a theory that reflects the behavior of the universe, and figuring out how to emulate the various idiosyncracies inherent in how the universe evolves over time (finite speed of information propagation, etc.). Finding testable aspects of the model is only possible after actually applying the theory, seeing where it falls short, and identifying ways to validate ambiguous conclusions.