Group Abstract Group Abstract

Message Boards Message Boards

0
|
3.3K Views
|
3 Replies
|
0 Total Likes
View groups...
Share
Share this post:

More than one ruliad in Wolfram Physics Project?

Posted 3 years ago

Wolfram's Physics Project is a very interesting one and its recent evolution fascinates me. I think that the recent discovery of the ruliad is a good progress in the project. However, there is something I don't understand:

According to Wolfram's writing about the ruliad (https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/), there is only one ruliad which contains all possible formal systems. I understand why there should be only one ruliad as it would contain all possible computational rules by definition. However, I can imagine a formal system or abstract situation where somehow there could be multiple rulial spaces or "ruliads". So, at the end, wouldn't it be possible that there could be other ruliads (for computational systems, I'm not talking about other possible "ruliads" containing hypercomputation)?

POSTED BY: Nodu Agga
3 Replies
Posted 1 day ago

I went to review the technical document Wolfram-ModelsForPhysics.pdf, and for the "formal system where could be multiple rulial spaces", I didn't see that. Well, I am not deep in Rulliad but below is how I think. And please forget about my previous "Computational Equivalence", I mistook that concept.

Yes, "Rulliad contains all possible computational rules", but do you remember that hypergraph? Rulliad contains rules only about edges on nodes: nodes that have no inner attributes, nodes that are only distinguishible by their connections in the directed (multi) graph

so rules are about how those edges change, regardless of nodes themselves. There may be different sets of rules with different input/output edge groups, but by difinition Rulliad includes all of them, I didn't see where the other Rulliad are.

By the way, I don't know why but I have a one day cool down after I post or reply, so I didn't reply until now.

POSTED BY: Kim NY
Posted 2 days ago

And couldn't there be different computational rules with different rule signatures somehow, so that their respective "ruliads" would be different in some way or another?

POSTED BY: Nodu Agga
Posted 2 days ago

It's about computational equivalence, different computational rules can have the same rule signature, being computationally equivalent, which can be seen as the same rule. In my opinion.

POSTED BY: Kim NY
Reply to this discussion
Community posts can be styled and formatted using the Markdown syntax.
Reply Preview
Attachments
Remove
or Discard