L

Great idea! Constructor Theory seems to have something in common with the Wolfram Physics Project.

I’m late on this comment, but nodes and edges are formal constructs that come from complex systems and network theory and information theory…they are nothing like strings…they are necessary tools in modeling systems so your question is like asking why we use particles in a box to describe particle physics. The particle in a box construction (thinking about forces like springs and so on) is one way to model a system. Nodes and edges (modeling systems as a network) is just way more robust in a lot of ways. Something to mention, is that the atoms of space are not exactly physical really…they are real…but it’s informational…like how the “atoms of your computer” are 0’s and 1’s. The 0’s and 1’s don’t really exist in a purely physical sense but they exist informationally and this theory is based on the fact that information is equivalent to it being physical. Because of this: atoms of space being nodes and edges make the construction of the theory as simple as possible…the wolfram model at a trivial level needs no math to describe what it is that you see…where as string theory is the complete opposite: where you need towers and towers of math to understand remotely anything about it. Anyway hopefully my explanation was not that confusing…but just look up complex systems 101 on KZfaq.

@@NightmareCourtPictures Thanks for your input. :) It all reads a bit convoluted to an aging atmospheric physicist but I suppose that's the way things have developed since I retired. I'll investigate complex systems but KZfaq may be a later call in my efforts. Thanks again.

@@newolderalso2 ya np. When you get around to it with Complex systems you’ll almost immediately see the similarities between the wolfram model and that body of science. Complex systems more or less encompasses all the interesting things you’ve probably wondered about as an atmospheric scientist (like turbulence, scale invariance, chaos and fractals in weather systems) and models things like weather behavior as a complex system, which makes a lot more sense in trying to understand the “why” of those systems. Moreover, if you study complex systems enough you’ll inevitably draw the connection it has to computation (computational complexity) and this is the bridge that the wolfram model stands across from and ultimately is a unifier of the whole field. It’s well worth your time and very relevant to your field of study. I understand your frame of reference a bit too because I started out many years ago studying tornadoes and the supercells they come from, so I’m glad you mentioned that. Cheers,

Physical validation: when the graphs can run on a quantum computer that pings qubits?

Whole dimensions until the time a new one enters or leaves the picture?

Thinking a black hole only needs an explosion in connectivity...with edges in and out.