https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03902
I was wondering whether there was a short statement that summarized how autodidactic systems differ from the Wolfram Physics project approach to the "universe as a computer" and I found one in the paper:
>In this section we discuss several protocols for autodidactic systems, as well as some preliminary computational experiments. A protocol defines a dynamic architecture with rules for change that lend themselves to interpretations as learning strategies or reward functions. Generally speaking, the autodidactic paradigm suggests none of these may be fixed a priori, since one history guided by a set of rules might transform itself to be guided by altered rules, though in practice it is often helpful to limit the number of ways in which the system may evolve. Autodidactic systems are distinct, however, from emergent cosmological models that apply a priori growth rules consistently, as in [41].
>[41] Stephen Wolfram. A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics. Wolfram Media, 2020.
Completely uninformed, but phenomena like General Relativity emerging from a priori growth rules (IIRC claimed by the Wolfram Physics project) seems more parsimonious than rules that change over time.
I see now that the authors are in fact institutional scholars that I am guessing Microsoft provided philanthropic funding to?
It will be interesting to see if the James Webb telescope can shed some light (Figuratively) on this subject.
Physicists working with Goldman Sachs think the universe is an economic simulation
Physicists working with DoD think the universe is a giant battlefield
...
To the best of my primitive mind, am I correct in understanding their theory is the laws of physics in the universe are permanently changing over time, and because we are within this universe of constantly changing laws, we do not have the perspective to observe these changes or recreate them in a mathematical model?
