I haven&#x27;t voted on your comment, but here&#x27;s what stands out to me: (1) It&#x27;s not written in good style. People who care about how their ideas are received by others take the time to write properly, including capitalization and punctuation.<p>(2) It reads like a middlebrow dismissal. It&#x27;s critical but doesn&#x27;t add much of substance on its own through the criticism. Wolfram certainly realizes that he hasn&#x27;t proven his case, that current science is indeed incredibly useful, and that the current path will only be a &quot;detour&quot; if network- or automata-based models are proven correct in the end. That&#x27;s why he says he &quot;suspects&quot; it &quot;may&quot; have led us to a detour. He certainly understands that the theory needs to be developed further. Put simply, Wolfram would probably agree with your overall sentiment, so the remarks are not insightful, but they&#x27;re presented as if they&#x27;d likely be at odds with his position.<p>(3) Beyond style, the diction is unclear, such as the choice of the word &quot;use-case&quot;. It&#x27;s unclear to me what you&#x27;re referring to. It&#x27;s unusual to refer to physics as &quot;use-cases&quot;. If that&#x27;s intended as an analogy, then for me it doesn&#x27;t connect or succeed.<p>(4) The ideas themselves are not clear. &quot;... reveal those use-cases untouched by contemporary thought&quot;; &quot;an existence where every new finality conjures new questions&quot;. It&#x27;s not clear what you&#x27;re trying to convey with those phrases. You probably could say what you&#x27;re trying to say in a simpler, more direct, and less critical way way. You might benefit from this advice: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;talk.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;talk.html</a><p>&gt; Here&#x27;s a simple trick for getting more people to read what you write: write in spoken language. Something comes over most people when they start writing. They write in a different language than they&#x27;d use if they were talking to a friend. The sentence structure and even the words are different. [...] But perhaps worst of all [mistakes], complex sentences and fancy words give you, the writer, the false impression that you&#x27;re saying more than you actually are.<p>If I was to try to rephrase what you&#x27;ve said in simple language, then I end up with something like: &quot;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&quot;, which isn&#x27;t that interesting. With the current phrasing it reads like a middlebrow dismissal.