>>12785096But Wolfram is technically correct. The problem is that it extends way beyond physics and mathematics.
It's a question about representation and the limits of representation. Like is it possible to write a textbook about the universe? That specifically our universe and the fundamental laws can be expressed as a representation? I don't see why we can't since we can write a textbook about nearly everything else. If we can write a textbook about the universe, that it is possible, then we can technically arrive at that textbook randomly.
Think about it this way. Wolfram cell automata is an infinite library with each book in the library a specific set of rules for a given instance of cell automata. Wolfram has shown that you will eventually come across a book that subject is Newtonian mechanics. A book on General Relativity. A book on chemistry. Maybe a book of the works of Shakespeare and so on. Wolfram believes that eventually you will come across a book that contains the universe itself and all its fundamental rules and will match will with reality. Of course there's going to be a lot of junk books you will have to go through.
It's an interesting technique. Instead of using language to describe the universe it's using cell automata. The representation is the same. If you say that it is impossible, that there is no cell automata within Wolfram's engine that can represent the universe, then you are admitting that the universe is unknowable that there is no set of fundamental laws the universe obeys. Thus there is no textbook that can be written to describe the fundamental nature of the universe.
