I think the grand unifying theory of everything is computation theory based. Of course I'm guilty of bias, because that's what I understand most. From Wolfram's physics project, to understanding markets (and especially impossibility of effective central planning due to Wolfram's principle of computational irreducibility), to mind and consciousness, ... I'm not saying current computational theory explains everything, rather that in order to explain everything explainable (and especially in finding limits of what is and is not explainable), it will all have strong computational theory basis. We know a lot of computation. And computation is about the dynamics of systems. It's a theory of change and what change is possible. And how fast. If you want to understand the world on a deep level, study informatics and computation. In addition to your field. But study it deeply. You're not aiming for knowing what it is about but in the details, because they matter.

Replies (9)

Agreed. (probably cause of similar bias) Coming from the industry of multi-party computation, Shamir's secret sharing, and EDDSA/ECDSA into hardcore Bitcoin, then falling sideways into the #Nostr side of things exposes how encryption and encryption-methods can make or break people, banks, reserves, identities, nefarious plans, devices, topple govts, expose crimes and more. 🫆 Very Mr. Robot.. image 🔏 Computation is Revolutionary ✊ #FSociety #Computation #ComputationalTheory #Encryption View quoted note →
Agreed. If something is truly a computational theory of reality, it must produce physical time and preserve conservation of energy. Otherwise it’s just abstract mathematics with no thermodynamic grounding. Bitcoin already does both. It produces discrete, irreversible time through proof-of-work, and every state transition is anchored to real energy expenditure. Each block is a conserved transformation: entropy resolved into a single valid state, carried forward without contradiction. That is a computational system operating under physical law, not just symbolic logic. So why is Bitcoin not considered a legitimate candidate for such a system? Wolfram’s work is brilliant, but his hypergraph remains energy-agnostic. He has a formal causal structure without thermodynamic anchoring. In trying to construct a discrete, causal, computational universe, he’s effectively rebuilding what Bitcoin already instantiated. Bitcoin is a bounded, energy-conserving causal graph evolving in discrete time. Why is Bitcoin not an operational instance of a computational universe? Whats missing?
Not in English that I know of. I'm sure there are, I studied this in college though, so I don't know what a good resource might be for someone not studying it as master's.