all possible initial conditions evolved through all possible histories
this is the most concise, accessible description I’ve heard of the Ruliad 👍
the Observer carves out a particular slice of the computational substrate that becomes their experienced reality
not clear at this stage why the observer is “special”. Like, the Ruliad is a “possibility space” but the Observer is a “concrete reality”?
complexity measured by the minimal history required to produce that structure
I like this a lot ^
The Scientific Revolution started with Descartes’ dream of a Universal Theory that could answer all questions that could be asked, including and especially those concerning human purpose, moral truth, and ultimate meaning.
This part in particular is the same goal Michael Smith has/is advocating for.
The Enlightenment’s great bargain was a narrowing of scope of investigation in exchange for certainty within that scope. This tactical retreat became, over centuries, an unbridgeable chasm.
⭐️ This is a GREAT pull quote
It establishes faith—understood here as the selection of foundational axioms—not as an intellectual weakness or a stopgap for missing knowledge, but as the necessary basis for any system of understanding
⭐️⭐️⭐️
This paper provides the first systematic mapping between the Ruliad computational metaphysics and Kabbalistic emanation theory
⭐️⭐️⭐️
this is maybe the most exciting part. If I were trying to market this paper this is maybe one of the lines I’d use (especially to attract if anyone else has done this, or is trying to do it)
(I threw this line into Exa’s semantic search just to see if there’s anyone else writing about this. After Wolfram’s own writing, I found (June 2025) The Transiad and the Transputational Function (Φ): Universal Actualization Dynamics and the Emergence of Physical Reality- can’t tell at first glance if there’s any useful overlap here)
Every attempt to derive “ought” from “is,” to extract meaning from mechanism, fails. This is not a temporary limitation that future science will overcome but appears to be a structural feature of the empirical method itself.
This is a bold claim, and I think one of the most important pieces of this. I think this splits the readers: some will 100% agree with this and say they’ve believed in this for a long time now, and are excited to find the others. And those who think this is crazy, that this is “abandoning the scientific method” and is a regression to a dark age.
I think the latter group would point to this following sentence to say “see! even you admit you are describing a futile effort”
This is not an attempt to prove God’s existence through physics—such a proof would violate the very epistemic boundaries we are describing.
There’s probably a metaphor here to explain it, but it’s like, one model is “bigger” than the other? You can see how physics fits in a world where God exists, but you can’t “see” God from inside the physics world. Like a piece of software that cannot “see” the hardware it is running on?
This paper advances what we call the God Conjecture: that the Ruliad-Observer framework emerging from computational physics is structurally isomorphic to classical theological accounts of divine creation and sustenance of reality.
⭐️
the same phenomenon from different vantage points—one from within the system looking outward, the other from a transcendent position looking inward
Been thinking about this a lot recently! I drew the bottom one, and Poser drew the top ones.
In this explanatory gap, theology thrives. Not the literal rules, but the deep frameworks
maybe worth explaining what you mean by “literal rules” vs “deep frameworks”? I think “literal rules” = “surface level rules” (like the rituals).
I think the most helpful concept I’ve found here is thinking of theology has having a “frontend” and a “backend” (as a software metaphor)
The concept of tzimtzum
The Tree of Life, with its ten sefirot
these are great pointers, can see each of these being a whole essay (or a series). Feels like a good “exercise left to the reader” to find/elaborate on this connection
Questions
- What does it mean that reality has a “linguistic component”?
- “The choice between naturalistic and theistic axioms” → i don’t think I understand this paragraph. But I think maybe this hints at the question I had earlier about what makes the “Observer special” - like the naturalistic view would be that the observer is itself just part of the infinite paths of the Ruliad, like any other object?