How do you take someone seriously who says, "Mathematics, so useful a tool in the past, cannot describe this situation. The only way to describe this system is by using the system itself; there are no shortcuts. Math, philosophy, reason and order are inapplicable because they are only rules-based approximations of a chaotic state."
That's tantamount to saying that his theory is not based on data, logic, or even sound reasoning, and cannot be proven. Pretty much the definition of a crackpot theory. Of course, what he is actually admitting is that he doesn't understand and can't do the math.
Or how can you take someone seriously who says, "We’re stuck in a paradigm that doesn’t result in any valid fundamental predictions." This is so obviously false that the only possible explanation is that he is ignorant about the foundations of modern physics, what they are, how we got here, etc. The field is freaking loaded with predictions that have been proven.
The tl;dr is that physics is not necessarily explainable, however much you want it to be. So it's very possible that the underlying phenomena of reality is simply out of reach of theories (i.e. it's incompressible).
> That's tantamount to saying that his theory is not based on data, logic, or even sound reasoning, and cannot be proven. Pretty much the definition of a crackpot theory.
You misunderstood the post I think. It's not proposing a theory, or even a crackpot one. It's saying that maybe the underlying phenomena is out of reach of theories.
Nonsense. It’s just a rehash of the old steady state model. Further, any theory which itself claims to be unproveable, is a religious sentiment masquerading as science, and is a waste of mental effort.
Wolfram’s article is irrelevant to this discussion. It is a question of empistemology.
