But a theory is supposed to model something that actually exists, yes?  So for instance when philosophers made the conjecture for the existence of the atom, their theory was either correct or not, on the basis of whether the atom actually existed in nature.<p>So if Wolfram is correct, then there exists at the lowest level of nature a network, upon which everything else follows. Wolfram is trying to describe reality, something that exists, analogous to the existence of the atom?  Do we agree this far?<p>If these Wolfram-nodes of our networked-reality do indeed exist, how are they connected in unique patterns if there is no &quot;space&quot; between them?<p>If his theory is not meant to predict something that actually exists, as in the prediction of the atom, well then, i&#x27;ll bow out of this conversation because it&#x27;s well and truly beyond my conception of what science is about.