Wow, he's turning into a crackpot: long, rambling articles with no introduction or conclusions that have no math or results to speak of, furtive mentions of how the rest of the physics community can't grasp how brilliant and far-out his remarkable work is (which could be because he doesn't publish, doesn't collaborate, doesn't go to conferences, and basically doesn't actually participate in the research community).
You might find this review of Wolfram's book interesting:<p><a href="http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/nks.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/nks.pdf</a>
Why should it be this network thing? He doesn't back up his assertion that the universe is described by one of these networks.<p>Juergen Schmidhuber lays out an interesting idea that our Universe is just one Turing machine, generated by an enumeration of all Turing machines (generating all possible Universes). <a href="http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/everything/html.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/everything/html.html</a>
I read NKS. Good book! Especially for math, physics, and programming geeks.<p>There has been a lot of speculation that the universe is a simulation. If Wolfram manages to ascertain the rules and network that "runs" the universe, then the question becomes whether a universe is a simulation, or just acts like one. Is there a difference between something that has only computational rules and structure and a computer program?
So if our universe is essentially computational, what are the implications of Godel's incompleteness theorem? Doesn't this mean there must be an infinite number of axioms our universe is generated from?
<a href="http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/</a> provides an interesting read on Wolfram and his "New" "Science".