I’m involved in the development of the Functional Universe (FU) framework [0], and I see some interesting intersections with Wolfram’s ruliology.
Both start from the idea that simple rules / functions can generate complex structure. Where FU adds a twist is by making a sharp distinction between possibility and history. In FU, we separate aggregation (the space of all admissible transitions—superpositions, virtual processes, rule applications) from composition (the irreversible commitment of one transition that actually enters history).
You can think of ruliology as exploring the space of possible rule evolutions, while FU focuses on how one path gets selected and becomes real, advancing proper time and building causal structure. Rules generate possibilities; commitment creates facts.
So they’re not the same thing, but I think they’re complementary: ruliology studies the landscape of rules, FU studies the boundary where possibility turns into irreversible history.
I actually think this is just computer science. Why? Because the first "computer scientist" - Alan Turing - was interested in this exact same set of ideas.
The first programs he wrote for the Atlas and the Mark II ("the Baby"), seem to have been focused on a theory he had around how animals got their markings.
They look a little to me (as a non-expert in these areas, and reading them in a museum over about 15 minutes, not doing a deep analysis), like a primitive form of cellular automata algorithm. From the scrawls on the print outs, it's possible that he was playing with the space of algorithms not just the algorithms themselves.
It might be worth going back and looking at that early work he did and seeing it through this lens.
And that's my point; it's okay to create new names for sub-disciplines, as Wolfram is doing here. Because that's what we have been doing since the days of Aristotle.
The idea iiuc, is that pattern formation in animals depends on molecules diffusing through the growing system (the body) and reacting where the waves of molecules overlap.
To me , the 1952 paper is very important, since it shows up in theoretical biology a lot. Seeing generality at all these different emergence levels is really exciting to me. (and it makes me sad when others don't see it). Can you imagine? Set up a few gradients, and now you have coordinates. Put all the bits where they're supposed to go like uhhh... GLSL sort of loosly fits. How cool is THAT?
More recently I've gotten into all sorts of debates on HN by people who like Searle. Often the argument goes "Turing is all wrong, he knows nothing about biology."
Turns out towards the end of his life he was applying his knowledge to biology. Most of which experimentally verified, besides!
(ps. just to be sure: Never wondered how DNA encodes the trick? You started out as a clump of cells, all the same. How did one part decide to become the tip of your nose, and the other the tips of your toes? Segmentation controlled by Turing patterns all the way down!)
Always found this term sounded like a half-backed one. I get that going full greek roots with nomology was a dead end due to prior art. But "regularology" was probably free, or even at the time "regulogy" or "regology" though by now they are attached to different notions.
Yes, he frequently exhibits an ego the size of Jupiter. But he is very smart†, and he writes well, and this stuff that theyre doing is at least interesting. I don't know if its physics or metaphysics or something else entirely, and it may be just empty tail-chasing, but I reckon its at least worth paying some attention to.
† and he's also built a long-term business making and selling extremely capable maths tooling, of all things, which I think is worth some respect
Sure, it's typical Wolfram, inviting the typical criticism. If you can understand what he's talking about at all then you won't be very convinced it's new. If you can't understand what he's talking about, then you also won't be interested in the puffery and priority dispute.
But exactly what is the problem here? Other than perhaps a very mechanical view of the universe (which he shares with many other authors) where it is hard to explain things like consciousness and other complex behaviors.
With Wolfram it is usually the grandstanding and taking credit for other people's work. Inventing new words for old things is part and parcel of that. He has a lot in common with Schmidhuber, both are arguably very smart people but the fact that other people can be just as smart doesn't seem to fit their worldview.
I am struggling to understand what is new here - other than the word ruliad - which to me seems to similar to what we have in theoretical computer science when we talk about languages, sentences, and grammars.
It's just Wolfram explaining how he likes stuying things that can be describe by simple rules and how complexity can emerge in spite of (or because of?) the seeming simplicity of those rules. He came up with a word for it, and while I think "ruliology" sounds a bit silly, it does say what's on the tin.
For some reason he doesn't like doing mathematical demonstrations so he shuns the practice of doing them, and invented a new word to describe that way of using formal systems.
The Wolfram Engine (essentially the Wolfram Language interpreter/execution environment) is free: https://www.wolfram.com/engine/. You can download it and run Wolfram code.
Isn't this his personal blog? The domain name is "stephenwolfram.com", this is his personal website. Of course there will be "I"'s and "me"'s — this website is about him and what he does.
As for falsifiability:
> You have some particular kind of rule. And it looks as if it’s only going to behave in some particular way. But no, eventually you find a case where it does something completely different, and unexpected.
So I guess to falsify a theory about some rule you just have to run the rule long enough to see something the theory doesn't predict.
Ruliology provides a powerful descriptive framework - a taxonomy of computational behavior. However, it operates at the level of external dynamics without grounding in a primitive ontology. It tells us that rules behave, not why they exist or what they fundamentally are.
This makes ruliology an invaluable cartography of the computational landscape, but not a foundation. It maps the territory without explaining what the territory is made of.
I’m involved in the development of the Functional Universe (FU) framework [0], and I see some interesting intersections with Wolfram’s ruliology.
Both start from the idea that simple rules / functions can generate complex structure. Where FU adds a twist is by making a sharp distinction between possibility and history. In FU, we separate aggregation (the space of all admissible transitions—superpositions, virtual processes, rule applications) from composition (the irreversible commitment of one transition that actually enters history).
You can think of ruliology as exploring the space of possible rule evolutions, while FU focuses on how one path gets selected and becomes real, advancing proper time and building causal structure. Rules generate possibilities; commitment creates facts.
So they’re not the same thing, but I think they’re complementary: ruliology studies the landscape of rules, FU studies the boundary where possibility turns into irreversible history.
[0]https://github.com/VoxleOne/FunctionalUniverse/blob/main/doc...
I actually think this is just computer science. Why? Because the first "computer scientist" - Alan Turing - was interested in this exact same set of ideas.
The first programs he wrote for the Atlas and the Mark II ("the Baby"), seem to have been focused on a theory he had around how animals got their markings.
They look a little to me (as a non-expert in these areas, and reading them in a museum over about 15 minutes, not doing a deep analysis), like a primitive form of cellular automata algorithm. From the scrawls on the print outs, it's possible that he was playing with the space of algorithms not just the algorithms themselves.
It might be worth going back and looking at that early work he did and seeing it through this lens.
By the same argument, it's mathematics because John Conway was a mathematician, and it's physics because Ulam and Von Neumann were physicists.
Come on, everybody knows it's philosophers all the way down. It's even in the title: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_All_the_Way_Down
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosoph...
https://xefer.com/2011/05/wikipedia
https://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs224w-2013/projects2013/cs2...
And that's my point; it's okay to create new names for sub-disciplines, as Wolfram is doing here. Because that's what we have been doing since the days of Aristotle.
Aristotle is the founder of biology:
https://youtu.be/kz7DfbOuvOM
These are computer scientists:
https://youtu.be/wQbFkAkThGk
I think this is 'Reaction-diffusion models'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction%E2%80%93diffusion_sys...
The idea iiuc, is that pattern formation in animals depends on molecules diffusing through the growing system (the body) and reacting where the waves of molecules overlap.
To me , the 1952 paper is very important, since it shows up in theoretical biology a lot. Seeing generality at all these different emergence levels is really exciting to me. (and it makes me sad when others don't see it). Can you imagine? Set up a few gradients, and now you have coordinates. Put all the bits where they're supposed to go like uhhh... GLSL sort of loosly fits. How cool is THAT?
More recently I've gotten into all sorts of debates on HN by people who like Searle. Often the argument goes "Turing is all wrong, he knows nothing about biology."
Turns out towards the end of his life he was applying his knowledge to biology. Most of which experimentally verified, besides!
(ps. just to be sure: Never wondered how DNA encodes the trick? You started out as a clump of cells, all the same. How did one part decide to become the tip of your nose, and the other the tips of your toes? Segmentation controlled by Turing patterns all the way down!)
Alan Turing is FAR from the first computer scientist, though, if we want to be pedantic
Right. is "the basic science of what simple rules do" not the same as Formal systems?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system
It is generative functions. Wolfram is grifting again.
It's starting to sound an awful lot like a Ruligion.
Always found this term sounded like a half-backed one. I get that going full greek roots with nomology was a dead end due to prior art. But "regularology" was probably free, or even at the time "regulogy" or "regology" though by now they are attached to different notions.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regula#Latin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomology
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols4/ontologies/ro/properties/http%253... https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/regology
Wolfram's eulogy will be titled: "A life wasted on cellular automata"
Whenever Wolfram brings up cellular automata again, I think of John Conway who got tired of being known for Conway's Game of Life.
Thanks for the laugh. :D
Surprised it’s not called Wolfrology. This man is ego personified - not reading.
> not reading
Respectfully, I think that is a mistake.
Yes, he frequently exhibits an ego the size of Jupiter. But he is very smart†, and he writes well, and this stuff that theyre doing is at least interesting. I don't know if its physics or metaphysics or something else entirely, and it may be just empty tail-chasing, but I reckon its at least worth paying some attention to.
† and he's also built a long-term business making and selling extremely capable maths tooling, of all things, which I think is worth some respect
And you thought your decision to not1 read the article was worth sharing why?
At least Wolfram's ego led him to contribute something interesting.
If you want other people to name something after you, you have to give it a name they have reason to replace.
Classic psychoceramicology. http://bactra.org/notebooks/psychoceramics.html
Sure, it's typical Wolfram, inviting the typical criticism. If you can understand what he's talking about at all then you won't be very convinced it's new. If you can't understand what he's talking about, then you also won't be interested in the puffery and priority dispute.
The rest of his stuff tagged ruliology is more interesting though. Here's one connecting ML and cellular automata: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2024/08/whats-really-goi...
Someone mentioned his apparently failed earlier work ANKOS. I had to look that up - it is 2002 book by Wolfram with seemingly similar ideas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
But exactly what is the problem here? Other than perhaps a very mechanical view of the universe (which he shares with many other authors) where it is hard to explain things like consciousness and other complex behaviors.
With Wolfram it is usually the grandstanding and taking credit for other people's work. Inventing new words for old things is part and parcel of that. He has a lot in common with Schmidhuber, both are arguably very smart people but the fact that other people can be just as smart doesn't seem to fit their worldview.
He may be smarter than I am, but I'm smart enough to tell that he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
And you were smart enough to verbalize this in a neat short humble sentence, a remarkable feat, bravo!
I am struggling to understand what is new here - other than the word ruliad - which to me seems to similar to what we have in theoretical computer science when we talk about languages, sentences, and grammars.
It's just Wolfram explaining how he likes stuying things that can be describe by simple rules and how complexity can emerge in spite of (or because of?) the seeming simplicity of those rules. He came up with a word for it, and while I think "ruliology" sounds a bit silly, it does say what's on the tin.
The word he's looking for is "formal system".
For some reason he doesn't like doing mathematical demonstrations so he shuns the practice of doing them, and invented a new word to describe that way of using formal systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system
To me it sounds like this stuff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
But maybe it is more like fractals and emerging complex systems?
This looks very exciting but wolfram language being paywalled makes me super sad I can't play around with it
The Wolfram Engine (essentially the Wolfram Language interpreter/execution environment) is free: https://www.wolfram.com/engine/. You can download it and run Wolfram code.
Wolfram Mathematica (the Jupyter Notebook-like development environment) is paid, but there are free and open source alternatives like https://github.com/WLJSTeam/wolfram-js-frontend.
> WLJS Notebook ... [is] A lightweight, cross-platform alternative to Mathematica, built using open-source tools and the free Wolfram Engine.
You can play around with this:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/
[flagged]
he invented the term and so pleased its blowing up.
Amount of "I" and "me" is astonishing.
Didn't find anything on falsifiable criteria -- any new theory should be able, at least in theory, to be tested for being not true.
Isn't this his personal blog? The domain name is "stephenwolfram.com", this is his personal website. Of course there will be "I"'s and "me"'s — this website is about him and what he does.
As for falsifiability:
> You have some particular kind of rule. And it looks as if it’s only going to behave in some particular way. But no, eventually you find a case where it does something completely different, and unexpected.
So I guess to falsify a theory about some rule you just have to run the rule long enough to see something the theory doesn't predict.
he be the trump of his new kinda science world.
Sure, but everyone always says that. What do you think of what he wrote about?
Some things, like the foundations of mathematics, are not falsifiable.
You judge them by how useful they are.
Ruliology is a bit like that.
That's his style. It's not just his blog style, it's the same in his book.
https://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200207/stephen_wolframs_unfor...
Ruliology provides a powerful descriptive framework - a taxonomy of computational behavior. However, it operates at the level of external dynamics without grounding in a primitive ontology. It tells us that rules behave, not why they exist or what they fundamentally are.
This makes ruliology an invaluable cartography of the computational landscape, but not a foundation. It maps the territory without explaining what the territory is made of.