Fundamental Theory

3 Simple Reasons Why Wolfram's New 'Fundamental Theory' Is Not Yet Science

[+]

Every once in a while, a revolutionary idea comes along that has the potential to supersede our best scientific ideas of the day. This happened numerous times in theoretical physics during the 20th century, as Einstein’s General Relativity replaced Newtonian gravity, quantum physics replaced our classical view of the Universe, and the quantum field theory-based Standard Model superseded the early-20th century version of our quantum Universes 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/05/13/3-simple-reasons-why-wolframs-new-fundamental-theory-is-not-yet-science/amp/

From simple rules, complex structures and[-]

relationships are well-known to emerge, something that predated Stephen Wolfram by many years. The notion that all of fundamental physics can be derived from such an approach is speculative, at best, today.

Over the past half-century, many novel ideas have sought to surpass the current limitations plaguing theoretical physics, from supersymmetry to extra dimensions to grand unification to quantum gravity to string theory. The ultimate idea of many is to arrive at one unified theory of everything: where one framework elegantly encompasses the entirety of nature’s laws. The latest contender is Stephen Wolfram’s new approach to a theory of everything, heavily publicized last month. But not only isn’t it particularly compelling, it isn’t even science at this point. Here’s why.