But what our Physics Project suggests is that underneath everything we physically experience there is a single very general abstract structure—that we call the ruliad—and that our physical laws arise in an inexorable way from the particular samples we take of this structure.
I call it the ruliad. Think of it as the entangled limit of everything that is computationally possible: the result of following all possible computational rules in all possible ways.
My initial objection is the following. I can imagine a universe where what is computable inside the universe is not sufficient to describe the universe. The universe might, for example, run on real numbers but due to something vaguely resembling the uncertainty principle those can not be fully used for computations within that universe and so the most powerful computational device within the universe ends up being something discrete like a Turing machine.
Admittedly those two quotes are essentially everything I have read about this topic and this might be addressed somewhere, maybe my objection itself is not consistent, but I think one needs a good justification why computability within a universe is essential for understanding or explaining that universe.
I'm not sure that this objection has much practical significance even if it turns out to be true.
I think the more pressing concern with the ruliad program is that a description of all things possible is a also description of nothing in particular.
Other workers developing mega-logical type stuff, frameworks and so on, ran into similar problems when it came time to find actual utility for their work. Sure, you have this super expressive thing... but the things you're supposed to build in it are better built on their own terms and the super expressive framework doesn't buy you enough to be worth engaging with.
no need to imagine this, this is already the case in this universe. at least if we're talking about actually computing something, not just writing down the equations on paper.
for example from everything we know at least so far there are some truly continuous non-quantized quantities yet all numerical solutions can ever produce is an ever increasingly good approximation of something.
some constants are irrational so we can never get true values of certain physical constants, etc...
I call it the ruliad. Think of it as the entangled limit of everything that is computationally possible: the result of following all possible computational rules in all possible ways.
My initial objection is the following. I can imagine a universe where what is computable inside the universe is not sufficient to describe the universe. The universe might, for example, run on real numbers but due to something vaguely resembling the uncertainty principle those can not be fully used for computations within that universe and so the most powerful computational device within the universe ends up being something discrete like a Turing machine.
Admittedly those two quotes are essentially everything I have read about this topic and this might be addressed somewhere, maybe my objection itself is not consistent, but I think one needs a good justification why computability within a universe is essential for understanding or explaining that universe.