Recent publication of a more accurate experimental measurement of the fine-structure constant

Seth relies on electromagnetism in his derivation. Right in the sentence before your quote (from the Seth's paper), Seth uses Coulomb interaction law between electrons. If he picked other carriers for information (say, neutrons), the constant would be different. His result also relies on the particle-field structure of the information carriers and interaction between them. Therefore, before we get to any constant calculations, it would be nice to ensure that the structures you are getting in WM resemble regular particles (which are fermions), and fields (or bosons).

Thanks for the link of your spinor model. I looked though it, but I am not sure I can see how exactly it maps onto regular spinors. I imagined a spinor in the Wolfram model is a "defect" within a graph. The defect must have appropriate degrees of freedom (matching regular spinors), and there should be some preservation law from the evolution rules, which would preserve the direction of the spinor.

Seth Lloyd's characterization of the finite structure constant seems to be simpler than the subject of spinors. Indeed, it only depends upon the time it takes to perform [a quantum logic operation] and the time it takes to send a signal at the speed of light between the bits. In comparison with String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and Geometric Unity, this characterization of the finite structure constant fits very well with the Wolfram Model, because it is computational. Furthermore, given any computer in the universe, it is possible to compute its finite structure constant using Seth Lloyd's characterization. The subtle part in the case of the Wolfram Model is that it is not a computer in the universe, but a computer generating the universe. So, time needs to be treated carefully in this definition. Concerning spinors in the Wolfram Model, at least 4 people (including myself) proposed their own versions (private communications). Here is my version (toy model).

I will focus on the finite structure constant and let spinors for another discussion. First, let's see Seth Lloyd's characterization in context:

For example, the ordinary electrostatic interaction between two charged particles can be used to perform universal quantum logic operations between two quantum bits. A bit is registered by the presence or absence of a particle in a mode. The strength of the interaction between the particles, [...], determines the amount of time [...] it takes to perform a quantum logic operation such as a Controlled-NOT on the two particles. Interestingly, the time it takes to perform such an operation divided by the amount of time it takes to send a signal at the speed of light between the bits [...] is a universal constant [pi divided by 2 times the fine structure constant]

Ok, I agree that this characterization depends upon the electromagnetic interaction. In the Wolfram Model, electromagnetism can be developed as a particular case of gauge theory in the following way, I quote from the technical introduction:

In traditional physics, local gauge invariance already occurs in classical theories (such as electromagnetism), and it is notable that for us it appears to arise from considering multiway systems. Yet although multiway systems appear to be deeply connected to quantum mechanics, the aggregate symmetry phenomenon that leads to gauge theories in effect makes slightly different use of the structure of the multiway causal graph.

The U(1) gauge field should be obtained from permutations in the following way (quotation from here):

[...] for each vertex in a spatial hypergraph, there are many possible orientations in which a hypergraph replacement rule could be applied to that vertex [...], and we may interpret each such orientation as corresponding to a particular choice coordinate basis (i.e. some local section of a fiber bundle), which will subsequently place constraints on the set of possible orientations for other purely spacelike-separated rule applications. Thus, we can interpret the hypergraph itself as corresponding to some base space, with each vertex corresponding to a fiber [...]

This is a general idea, anyone is invited to develop explicit construction. Here is some progress in the direction of gauge theory in the Wolfram Model. I hope that, in the following Winter School, some people will work in this direction.

I have written a manuscript with some complementary ideas, mixing Eric Weinstein's framework with S. Wolfram's approach.