i appreciate the thought out response.. i&#x27;ll try to address your points<p>1) sorry, it&#x27;s the way i write<p>2) solid response:<p><pre><code>   It&#x27;s critical but doesn&#x27;t add much of 
   substance on its own through the criticism. 
</code></pre>
what you said there mirrors my immediate reaction to the linked piece by wolfram, and in all fairness i felt it myself of my comment and intended to reply with a more directed response to the piece but found it difficult to find anything to riff off of<p><pre><code>    So then the question arises: could one of these simple
    programs in the computational universe actually be the
    program for our physical universe?
</code></pre>
this seems to be the base line on which his potential final theory is predicated, but this just reads as a rewrite of the infinite monkey theorem<p>if the universe is programmable, then surely within the bounds of every possible permutation of computation therein must lie a representation of the universe..?<p>3) &#x27;use case&#x27; and &#x27;science as directed utility&#x27; seemed explicitly to go hand in hand<p>4) &quot;... reveal those use-cases untouched by contemporary thought&quot;<p>one such important use case that showed the inherent utility of relativity was understanding retrograde motion(o), this was the sort of use case i was referring to one where the contemporary thought was unable to reach insight<p>&quot;an existence where every new finality conjures new questions&quot;<p>here i&#x27;d agree i erred on poetics to allow for some self discovery, what i hoped to express was that every &#x27;final theory&#x27;, as wolfram puts it or finality as i put it, i think will introduce more questions mocking the title of final<p>relativity is sussed out and people, as wolfram attested, assume it to be true, but then later find it only reveals, seemingly by conjuring, questions they were unaware of<p>even einstein, the one person who stood to gain the most by espousing that his theory was &#x27;the final theory&#x27;, knew relativity to be wanting<p>it is my impression that i do write &#x27;in spoken language&#x27;<p>when was the last time you heard a capital letter? or &#x27;proper&#x27; punctuation?<p>these are the words i would use to talk to you about this topic<p>the diction may seem off because i avoid negative constructions:no, not, never, none,etc; with hopes that the a subsequent generation will have the patience to write out even negating prefixes: un-,i-,a-,etc;<p>i find removing negative constructions is a means of making discussion more inviting and less authoritative<p>next time someone asks if you&#x27;ve seen some new media, instead of saying &#x27;no&#x27; see what reaction something like &#x27;i&#x27;ve yet to have seen it&#x27; will afford<p>if a sentence comes easily as &quot;which isn&#x27;t that interesting&quot; i will take whatever time necessary to rewrite in order to write out the negative<p>reading your rewrite:<p><pre><code>    The ideas need to work to be useful. 
    We need to think up new ideas. 
    I think we&#x27;ll always have more questions to answer
</code></pre>
could placehold as a rewrite of wolfram&#x27;s piece<p>i&#x27;ll express it as your rewrite on one side of a colon and applicable sections from wolframs piece on the other, ctrl-f confirmation encouraged<p><pre><code>    ideas need to be useful: &quot;provides the only successful way 
    we have of describing spacetime&quot;

    we need to think up new ideas: &quot;started on my long journey 
    to go beyond traditional mathematical equations and instead 
    use computation and programs as basic models in science&quot;

    I think we&#x27;ll always have more questions to answer: 
    &quot;But what would such a program be like?..what’s the basic 
    “data structure” on which this program operates?..&quot; and on and on
</code></pre>
so yes, i agree, markedly uninteresting<p>(o) <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;theory.uwinnipeg.ca&#x2F;mod_tech&#x2F;node60.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;theory.uwinnipeg.ca&#x2F;mod_tech&#x2F;node60.html</a><p>.. an aside, can we talk to the fact that middlebrow seems the only brow held in contempt, i feel low brow and high brow each have their accepted merits(i) but i&#x27;ve yet to have seen something quantified as being middlebrow used in promotion<p>i wonder what the says about adjudged middles<p>(i) <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nymag.com&#x2F;nymag&#x2F;culture&#x2F;approvalmatrix&#x2F;archive&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nymag.com&#x2F;nymag&#x2F;culture&#x2F;approvalmatrix&#x2F;archive&#x2F;</a>