Stephen Wolfram

Let's say, turns out the minimal version of this, and this is kind of a cool thing for a language designer like me, the minimal version of this model is actually a single line of orphan language code.

So that's, which I wasn't sure was going to happen that way, but it's, it's a, that's, it's kind of, no, we don't know what, we don't know what, that's, that's just the framework to know the actual particular hypergraph that might be a longer, the specification of the rules might be slightly longer.

That's correct.

That's correct.

But so the thing that is really strange to me, and I haven't wrapped my brain around this yet, is, you know,

One is one keeps on realizing that we're not special in the sense that we don't live at the center of the universe, we don't blah, blah, blah.

And yet, if we produce a rule for the universe and it's quite simple and we can write it down in a couple of lines or something, that feels very special.

How do we come to get a simple universe

when many of the available universes, so to speak, are incredibly complicated, might be a quintillion characters long?

Why did we get one of the ones that's simple?

And so I haven't wrapped my brain around that issue yet.

Well, you know, the problem is we don't get to say much about what's outside our universe, because by definition our universe is what we exist within.

Now, can we make a sort of almost theological conclusion from being able to know how our particular universe works?

Interesting question.

I don't think that, if you ask the question, could we, and it relates again to this question about extraterrestrial intelligence, we've got the rule for the universe.

Was it built on purpose?

Hard to say.

That's the same thing as saying we see a signal that we're receiving from some random star somewhere, and it's a series of pulses, and it's a periodic series of pulses, let's say.

Was that done on purpose?

Can we conclude something about the origin of that series of pulses?