**Quo vadis Wolfram?
**

Reading the fat NKS book I wondered what bugs him? The central idea is obvious, you can generate complexity with simple programs. Then you read about emergence of order from randomness (Chapter 6) which I like less, as explained earlier in this thread.

http://www.what-is-cancer.com/papers/contents/compFrame.htm

Recently in a short article which appeared in his blog

http://blog.wolfram.com/2007/09/my_hobby_hunting_for_our_unive.html#more

Wolfram spelled out what really bugged him: “Physicists often like to think
that they're dealing with the most fundamental kinds of questions in science.
But actually, what I realized back in 1981 or so is that there's a whole layer
underneath.” It is governed by very simple rules that can generate all sorts
of rich and complex behavior.

Then came the first question: “. . what about our physical universe? Could it
be operating according to one of these simple rules? “Of course, that's not at
all how most of today's physicists like to think. They like to imagine that by
pure thought they can somehow construct the laws for the universe--like
universe engineers.” In other words they continue being Platonists searching
for the truth in the world of ideas. Might this imply that Wolfram is somewhat
different?

“So in a sense we have to go below space and time--to more fundamental
primitives. What might these be?” A network of interacting programs in which
space and time do not apply. Such a network does not exist in a space. “There
is not a ‘space’ there but a bunch of points.” Which are actually
connections. The programs exchange pieces of the network. “And in general
each possible sequence of rule applications might correspond to a
"different branch of time".”

Then comes the hammer:” But now we're deriving something like that for the
universe: we're saying that these networks with almost nothing "built
in" somehow generate behavior that corresponds to gravitation in physics.”
He then mentions two ideas alien to physics: 1. That physical theories could
emerge from something more fundamental and 2. “. . our whole universe and its
complete history could be generated just by starting with some particular small
network, then applying definite rules.”

All these ideas so weird to physicists simply indicate that Wolfram started
thinking biologically. His small network might be regarded as a mathematical
zygote from which our theoretical universe emerges.

We are told that Wolfram developed Mathematica for studying these “weird”
ideas. Why not create a tool which will model a simple causal network of
programs which exchange pieces of the network. As a starter he might consider
my proliferon.