But we know though, there is no real physical theory.
@philipthrift On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:32:16 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > My primary difficulty with this is not that this is a possibly useful > math-method, but that I have little physical sense of what this means. As > some combinatorics or paths or states this may have some utility, but this > to me is not terribly much a real physical theory. > > LC > > On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 3:13:05 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> *Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems* >> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace >> >> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/ >> >> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute >> of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): >> >> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re >> communicating.” >> >> >> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/ >> >> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of >> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981). >> >> >> @philipthrift >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5162709e-0cf0-414f-99b4-7fc715bcca2e%40googlegroups.com.
