>>11585817Technically it shouldn't be possible to find, because it'd require more computation than what the entire universe is capable of.
But why couldn't we just brute force a sort of arbitrary amount of calculations and compare the result against some distant part of universe that's relatively still young, so that you wouldn't have to "catch up" to our current time period. Even then it'd require a data structure to compute it at O(n) which might not be possible, while simultaneously computing maybe immensely huge amount of different rules in parallel.
It's probably impossible right now, but if you establish this as a new kind of research subject, as in physics/maths/chemistry, maybe people would come up with some smart ideas. Then again it sort of falls onto CS in general.
I personally think he's very close to the truth and it just makes a lot of sense and too many things fit in too nicely for it to be majorly wrong. It's sad that so few people seem to be interested in it or are talking about it. Though some certain things he talks about seems off sometimes to me.
What I personally think, is that we could find the rules for less complex things that are in our environment, so that we could get better insight into for example proteins/medicine. Seemingly a lot of things in nature follows some kind of obvious rules, like fractals.
