We’ve discussed how “observers like us” perceive models of physics of the type that arise in our Physics Project. But how will we perceive the whole ruliad? It begins with a generalization of the story for branchial space. Because now as well as having different branches associated with different updatings according to a particular rule, we have different branches associated with updatings according to different rules. page 
And just as we can slice an ordinary multiway system at a particular time to get an instantaneous version of branchial space, so now we can slice a rulial multiway system to get an instantaneous version of what we can call rulial space—a space in which different branches can correspond not just to different histories, but to different rules for history.
It’s a fairly complicated setup, with “pure branchial space” inevitably being deeply interwoven with Rulial Space. But as a first approximation, we can think of rulial space as being somewhat separate, and laid out so that different places in it correspond to the results of applying different rules—with nearby places effectively being associated with “nearby” rules.
And just as we can think of effects propagating in branchial space, so also we can think of them propagating in rulial space. In Branchial Space we can talk about Entanglement Cones as the analog of Light Cones, and a maximum entanglement speed as the analog of the speed of light. In Rulial Space we can instead talk about “Emulation Cones”—and a “maximum emulation speed”.
In our rough approximation of rulial space, each point is in effect associated with a particular rule. So how do we “move” from one point to another? Effectively we have to be emulating the behavior of one rule by another. But why should it even be possible to do this? The answer is the Principle of Computational Equivalence, which states that, in effect, most rules will be equivalent in their computational capabilities—and in particular they will be capable of universal computation, so that any given rule can always “run a program” that will make it emulate any other rule.
One can think of the program as an interpreter or translator that goes from one rule to another. The Principle of Computational Equivalence tells one that such a translator must essentially always exist. But how fast will the translator run? Effectively that’s what distance in rulial space measures. Because to “do a certain translation”, branches in the rulial multiway system have to reach from one rule to another. But they can only do that at the maximum emulation speed.
What does the maximum emulation speed measure? Effectively it corresponds to the raw computational processing speed of the universe. We can think of representing computations in some language—say the Wolfram Language. Then the processing speed will be measured in “Wolfram Language tokens processed per second” (“WLT/s”). In some sense, of course, giving a value for this speed is just a way of relating our human units of time (say, seconds) to the “intrinsic unit of time” associated with the computational processing that’s going on in the universe. Or, in other words, it’s a kind of ultimate definition of a second relative to purely formal constructs.
OK, but how does this relate to us as observers embedded within the ruliad? Well, just as we imagine that—along with the rest of the universe—we’re continually branching and merging in branchial space, so also this will be what happens in rulial space. In other words—like the rest of the universe—our brains aren’t following a particular rule; they’re following branching and merging paths that represent all possible rules.
But “from inside” we can still potentially imagine that we have a single thread of experience—effectively conflating what happens on all those different branches. And once again we can ask whether doing this will be consistent. And the answer seems to be that, yes, it can be. And what guarantees this is again a kind of “rulial relativity” that’s a consequence of Causal Invariance. There are many details here, which we’ll address to some extent later. But the broad outline is that causal invariance can be thought of as being associated with paths of history that diverge, eventually converging again. But since the ruliad contains paths corresponding to all possible rules, it’s basically inevitable that it will contain what’s needed to “undo” whatever divergence occurs.
So what does this mean? Basically it’s saying that even though the universe is in some sense intrinsically “following all possible rules”—as represented by paths in the ruliad—we as observers of the universe can still “take the point of view” that the universe follows a particular rule. Well, actually, it’s not quite a particular rule. Because just as we’re in some sense “quite big” in physical and presumably branchial space, so also we’re potentially “quite big” in rulial space.
And being extended in rulial space is basically saying that we consider not just one, but a range of possible rules to be what describe the universe. How can it work this way? Well, as observers of the universe, we can try to deduce what the “true rule for the universe” is. But inevitably we have to do this by performing physical experiments, and then using inductive inference to try to figure out what the “rule for the universe is”. But the issue is that as entities embedded within the universe, we can only ever do a finite number of experiments—and with these we’ll never be able to precisely nail down the “true rule”; there’ll always be some uncertainty.
When we think of ourselves as observers of the universe, there’s in a sense lots of “arbitrariness” in the way we’re set up. For example, we exist at a particular location in physical space—in our particular solar system and so on. Presumably we also exist at a particular location in branchial space, though it’s less clear how to “name” that. And in addition we exist at a particular location in rulial space.
What determines that location? Essentially it’s determined by how we operate as observers: the particular sensory system we have, and the particular means of description that we’ve developed in our language and in the history of knowledge in our civilization. In principle we could imagine sensing or describing our universe differently. But the way we do it defines the particular place in rulial space at which we find ourselves.
But what does all this mean in terms of the ruliad? The ruliad is the unique limiting structure formed by following all possible rules in all possible ways. But when we “observe the ruliad” we’re effectively “paying attention to” only particular aspects of it. Some of that “paying attention” we can conveniently describe in terms of our particular “location in the ruliad”. But some is more naturally described by thinking about equivalence classes in the ruliad.
Given two states that exist in the ruliad, we have to ask whether as observers we want to consider them distinct, or whether we want to conflate them, and consider them “the same”. When we discussed the construction of the ruliad, we already had many versions of this issue. Indeed, whenever we said that two paths in the ruliad “merge”, that’s really just saying that we treat the outcomes as equivalent.
“Viewed from the outside”, one could imagine that absolutely nothing is equivalent. Two hypergraphs produced in two different ways (and thus, perhaps, with differently labeled nodes) are “from the outside” in some sense different. But “viewed from the inside”, they pretty much have to be viewed as “the same”, in essence because all their effects will be the same. But at some level, even such conflation of differently labeled hypergraphs can be thought of as an “act of the observer”; something that one can only see works that way if one’s “observing it from inside the system”.
But all the way through our description of the observer, it’s very much the same story: it’s a question of what should be considered equivalent to what. In sequentializing time, we’re effectively saying that “all of space” (or “all of branchial space”, or rulial space) should be considered “equivalent”. There are many subtle issues of equivalence that also arise in the construction of states in the ruliad from underlying tokens, in defining what rules and initial conditions should be considered the same, and in many other places.
The ruliad is in some sense the most complicated constructible object. But if we as computationally bounded observers are going to perceive things about it, we have to find some way to “cut it down to size”. And we do that by defining equivalence classes, and then paying attention only to those whole classes, not all the details of what’s going on inside them. But a key point is that because we are computationally bounded observers who imagine a certain coherence in their experience, there are strong constraints on what kinds of equivalence classes we can use.
If we return again to the situation of Molecules in a Gas, we can say that we form equivalence classes in which we look only coarsely at the positions of molecules, in “Buckets” defined by simple, bounded computations—and we don’t look at their finer details, with all the computational irreducibility they involve. And it’s because of this way of looking at the system that we conclude that it follows the Second Law of thermodynamics, exhibits fluid behavior, etc.
And it’s very much the same story with the ruliad—and with the laws of physics. If we constrain the kind of way that we observe—or “parse”—the ruliad, then it becomes inevitable that the effective laws we’ll see will have certain features, which turns out apparently to be exactly what’s needed to reproduce known laws of physics. The full ruliad is in a sense very wild; but as observers with certain characteristics, we see a much tamer version of it, and in fact what we see is capable of being described in terms of laws that we can largely write just in terms of existing mathematical constructs.
At the outset, we might have imagined that the ruliad would basically just serve as a kind of dictionary of possible universes—a “universe of all possible universes” in which each possible universe has different laws. But the ruliad is in a sense a much more complicated object. Rather than being a “dictionary” of possible separate universes, it is something that entangles together all possible universes. The Principle of Computational Equivalence implies a certain homogeneity to this entangled structure. But the crucial point is that we don’t “look at this structure from the outside”: we are instead observers embedded within the structure. And what we observe then depends on our characteristics. And it turns out that even very basic features of our consciousness and sensory apparatus in a sense inevitably lead to known laws of physics—and in a sense do so generically, independent of details of just where in rulial space we are, or exactly what slice of the ruliad we take.
So far we’ve primarily talked about the ruliad in terms of physics and the fundamental structure of our physical universe. But the ruliad is actually something still more general than that. Because ultimately it is just created from the abstract concept of following all possible computational rules. And, yes, we can interpret these rules as representing things going on in our universe. But we can also interpret them as representing things going on in some other, less immediately physically realizable system. Or, for that matter, representing something purely formal, and, say, mathematical.
This way of talking about the ruliad might make one think that it should be “considered a possible model” for our universe, or for other things. But the bizarre and surprising point is that it is more than that. It’s not just a possible model that might be one of many. Rather, it is the unique ultimate representation of all possible models, entangled together. As we’ve discussed, there are many subtle choices about how we observe the ruliad. But the ultimate ruliad itself is a unique thing, with no choice about what it is.
As I’ve discussed at more length elsewhere, the ruliad is in a sense a representation of all possible necessary truths—a formal object whose structure is an inevitable consequence of the very notion of formalization. So how does this relate to the idea that the ruliad also at an ultimate level represents our physical universe? What I’ve argued elsewhere is that it means that the ultimate structure of our universe is a formal necessity. In other words, it’s a matter of formal necessity that the universe must exist, and have an ultimate ruliad structure. The fact that we perceive the universe to operate in a certain way—with our standard laws of physics, for example—is then a consequence of the particular way observers like us perceive it, which in turn depends on things like where in rulial space we happen to find ourselves.
But beyond physics, what else might the ruliad represent? The ruliad is an ultimate example of Multicomputation, and of what I’ve characterized as the fourth major paradigm for theoretical science. Often in multicomputation, what’s of interest is multiway systems with specific underlying rules. And already at this level, much of the apparatus that we’ve described in connection with the ruliad also applies—and in a sense “trickles down” to give various universal results.
But there are also definitely cases of multicomputation (other than physics) where the full notion of applying all possible rules is relevant. The global structures of metamathematics, economics, linguistics and evolutionary biology seem likely to provide examples—and in each case we can expect that at the core is the ruliad, with its unique structure. Of course, this doesn’t mean that what we observe must always be the same, because what we observe depends on our characteristics as an observer—and the characteristics of “being an observer” in metamathematics, for example, are surely different from those for economics or evolutionary biology, or, for that matter, physics.
For sure, the “sensory apparatus” that we effectively use is different in different cases. But there are certain similar human-based features that still seem to apply. Whatever the Domain, we always act as computationally bounded observers. And it seems that we also always have a certain coherence, consistently maintaining our “observerhood” through time or across some form of space. And it seems likely that these “human-induced” characteristics alone are sufficient to yield some very global implications for observed behavior.
~
Nachgedacht für 18 Sekunden (ChatGPT) >
Internet durchsucht Also, ich muss das Segment mit "Living in Rulial Space" herausziehen – es scheint ab dem Header, vielleicht bis zu "Conceptual Implications...", das wir bei L274 gefunden haben, weiterzugehen, was die nächste Sektion einleitet.
~
Prompt:
Give me L274
~
Here is line 274 from “The Concept of the Ruliad”: > **L274:** ## Conceptual Implications of the Ruliad > What does the concept of the ruliad mean for the fundamental way we think about things like science? ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)). –– ChatGPT
~
Aber der Hauptinhalt scheint bereits da zu sein. Ich werde meine Zettelkasten-Notizen überprüfen und die Notizen von OT-010 bis OT-014 darin einfließen lassen, um alles richtig zu strukturieren.
Internet durchsucht
Hm, ich frage mich, ob ich bei der Interpretation weiter mit dem Wiki nachschlagen sollte? Oder sollte ich lieber das Konzept der kausalen Invarianz untersuchen? Es scheint, als könnte beides relevant sein, je nachdem, in welche Richtung das Thema geht. Vielleicht hilft mir eine genauere Untersuchung der Unterschiede, um zu entscheiden, was für die Aufgabe besser geeignet ist. Beides klingt spannend!
Internet durchsucht
Fertig
## Summary In “Living in Rulial Space,” Wolfram extends his multiway/branchial‐space picture to an even more general **Rulial Space**—the space whose axes correspond to different computational rules themselves. Here, “Distance” measures the difficulty of emulating one rule by another (via an “Interpreter” whose existence is guaranteed by the Principle of Computational Equivalence), giving rise to **emulation cones** and a **maximum emulation speed** ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)).
Observers become extended patches in Rulial Space, tracing out trajectories across many rules but still experiencing a coherent “thread of reality” thanks to **rulial relativity** (a consequence of Causal Invariance) ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)).
Their **location in rulial space** is fixed by their sensory apparatus, language, and inductive methods, and motion through rulial space corresponds to doing computational work—complete with analogs of energy, momentum, curvature (e.g., paradigm‐shift “event horizons”), and stable “rulial particles” (concepts that can be robustly communicated) ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)).
## Zettelkasten-style Notes
This framework predicts that **alien intelligences** might be ruled‐distant even if physically nearby, and that our future lies in gradually mapping more of rulial space by inventing new ways of thinking and computation, bound ultimately by the universe’s raw processing speed ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)). ---
**Note OT-010: Instantaneous Rulial Space** *Content:* An **Instantaneous Slice** of the rulial multiway system (“Rulial Space”) captures all possible rule‐based update histories at a given “time,” generalizing branchial space from different histories under one rule to different histories under all rules. *Tags:* `#Ruliad` `#RulialSpace` `#BranchialGeneralization` ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/))
**Note OT-011: Emulation Cones & Emulation Speed** *Content:* **Emulation cones** in rulial space are the analog of light cones: they bound how fast one rule can emulate another. The **maximum emulation speed** measures the universe’s intrinsic computational processing rate (e.g., in “Wolfram Language tokens per second”). *Tags:* `#EmulationCones` `#MaxEmulationSpeed` `#PCE` ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)) **Note OT-012: Observers as Rulial Patches** *Content:* Observers aren’t single‐rule agents but are **extended in rulial space**, following branching/merging paths across many rules. Yet **rulial relativity** (from causal invariance) ensures that different “rulial reference frames” perceive a consistent fundamental description. *Tags:* `#RulialRelativity` `#CausalInvariance` `#ObserverIdentity` ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/), [Causal Invariance -- from Wolfram MathWorld](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CausalInvariance.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) **Note OT-013: Rulial Reference Frames & Locations** *Content:* An observer’s **location in rulial space** is determined by their sensory modalities, descriptive languages, and inductive methods. Moving requires computational work—translating between description languages equates to motion in rulial space. *Tags:* `#RulialReferenceFrame` `#ObserverSetup` `#ComputationalWork` ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)) **Note OT-014: Rulial Energy, Momentum & Curvature** *Content:* By analogy with physics, one can define **rulial energy** and **rulial momentum** via activity density in rulial space, and even **rulial curvature** reflecting how hard it is to travel between distant rulial points—potentially modeling paradigm‐shift “event horizons.” *Tags:* `#RulialDynamics` `#EventHorizon` `#ParadigmShift` ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)) **Note OT-015: Rulial Particles as Concepts** *Content:* **Rulial particles**—topologically stable structures that propagate coherently—correspond in everyday life to **concepts** (e.g., the idea of “fish”), which robustly transmit between different rulial frames (ways of thinking). *Tags:* `#Concepts` `#RulialParticles` `#Communication` ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)) **Note OT-016: Alien Civilizations in Rulial Space** *Content:* “Aliens” might be physically close yet **far in rulial space**, using rules or descriptive languages too remote for us to decode. Successful communication requires enough **shared description history** (common exploratory “experiments”) to knit together overlapping rulial regions. *Tags:* `#RulialAliens` `#SharedHistory` `#CommunicationBarrier` ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)) --- ## Toulmin Analysis & SIFT Evaluation ### OT-010: Instantaneous Rulial Space - **Claim:** Rulial space slices capture all rule‐based histories at an instant. - **Data (Grounds):** Wolfram defines slicing the rulial multiway to get rulial space, analogous to branchial slicing ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)). - **Warrant:** If multiway systems encode histories, slicing yields instant configurations. - **Backing:** Multiway systems are well‐studied in rewriting theory (e.g., term rewriting systems in computer science) ([Turing completeness - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness)). - **Qualifier:** Approximate insofar as pure branchial/rulial interweave. - **Rebuttal:** A perfect separation of branchial vs. rulial may not exist in practice. - **SIFT:** - **Stop:** Question whether “slice” notion is formal. - **Investigate:** Review term‐rewriting semantics in rewriting logic frameworks. - **Find Trusted Sources:** Wikipedia on term rewriting; Peer‐review on multiway systems. - **Trace:** Link Wolfram’s multiway formalism to foundational rewriting‐logic literature. ### OT-011: Emulation Cones & Emulation Speed - **Claim:** Emulation cones bound rule‐translation speeds; max emulation speed ties to universal processing rate. - **Data:** Wolfram introduces emulation cones & links distance in rulial space to interpreter runtime ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)). - **Warrant:** Space‐time analogies apply when “translation” is like signal propagation. - **Backing:** Computational complexity theory shows simulation overhead (e.g., interpreter speed) can vary but is bounded by universal Turing‐machine simulation theorems ([Turing completeness - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness)). - **Qualifier:** Only rough, first‐approximation measure. - **Rebuttal:** Different complexity‐theoretic translation schemes can break simple metric analogies. - **SIFT:** - **Stop:** Clarify what “distance” metric fulfills metric axioms. - **Investigate:** Compare to Kolmogorov complexity and universal simulation overheads. - **Find Trusted Sources:** Texts on computational complexity, interpreter overhead. - **Trace:** Match PCE’s interpreter argument back to universal UTMs. ### OT-012: Observers as Rulial Patches - **Claim:** Observers span multiple rules yet experience coherence via causal invariance. - **Data:** Wolfram describes observers branching across rules but conflating branches under causal invariance → rulial relativity ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/), [Causal Invariance -- from Wolfram MathWorld](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CausalInvariance.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com)). - **Warrant:** Causal invariance guarantees isomorphic causal graphs for different update orders. - **Backing:** MathWorld defines causal invariance for hypergraph rewriting ([Causal Invariance -- from Wolfram MathWorld](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CausalInvariance.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com)); Gorard et al. show its relation to Lorentz covariance ([Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model](https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810?utm_source=chatgpt.com)). - **Qualifier:** Holds only for causally invariant systems. - **Rebuttal:** If causal invariance fails, observers may see rule‐dependent inconsistencies. - **SIFT:** - **Stop:** Assess empirical support for causal invariance in the Physics Project. - **Investigate:** Examine Jonathan Gorard’s formal proofs of invariance→relativity. - **Find Trusted Sources:** ArXiv papers by Gorard; MathWorld. - **Trace:** Follow citations from Wolfram’s writings to Gorard’s work. ### OT-013: Rulial Reference Frames & Locations - **Claim:** An observer’s rulial location is set by their sensory and linguistic apparatus; moving requires computation. - **Data:** Wolfram ties rulial coordinates to description languages and translates between them via computational work ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)). - **Warrant:** Language and sensory filters define data equivalence—hence position in abstraction space. - **Backing:** In cognitive science, perceptual frameworks shape internal data compression and representation . - **Qualifier:** Applies to human‐like observers; non‐biological might differ. - **Rebuttal:** Abstract AI agents could change “language” far more flexibly, blurring static frames. - **SIFT:** - **Stop:** Clarify link between cognitive filters and mathematical coordinate choice. - **Investigate:** Look into theories of conceptual spaces (Gärdenfors). - **Find Trusted Sources:** Cognitive semantics literature; Gärdenfors’ “Conceptual Spaces” book. - **Trace:** Map Wolfram’s descriptive languages to conceptual‐space metrics. ### OT-014: Rulial Energy, Momentum & Curvature - **Claim:** One can define rulial analogs of energy, momentum, and curvature. - **Data:** Wolfram sketches rulial energy/momentum via activity density and curvature via difficulty of travel ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)). - **Warrant:** Physics analogies extend when both spaces are metricized by activity. - **Backing:** In statistical mechanics and relativity, density of events relates to energy–momentum tensors ([Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model](https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810?utm_source=chatgpt.com)). - **Qualifier:** Currently speculative, needs formal development. - **Rebuttal:** Without rigorous manifold structure, analogies may break. - **SIFT:** - **Stop:** Evaluate mathematical consistency of “rulial manifold.” - **Investigate:** Compare to differential geometry of metric spaces. - **Find Trusted Sources:** Texts on metric geometry; morphological analysis of abstract spaces. - **Trace:** Seek formal papers on “rulial curvature” if any. ### OT-015: Rulial Particles as Concepts - **Claim:** Stable structures in rulial space correspond to human concepts, enabling communication across frames. - **Data:** Wolfram proposes “rulial particles” akin to topological obstructions, mapping to words/concepts ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)). - **Warrant:** Robust concepts resist perturbation, like topologically stable defects. - **Backing:** Semiotics and cognitive linguistics show that core concepts exhibit high stability under semantic drift . - **Qualifier:** Not all concepts are equally stable. - **Rebuttal:** Many words rapidly shift meaning, acting more like ephemeral patterns. - **SIFT:** - **Stop:** Assess criteria for “topological stability” in semantic networks. - **Investigate:** Review network theory of conceptual stability. - **Find Trusted Sources:** Articles on semantic network resilience; C.S. Peirce’s semiotics. - **Trace:** Align Wolfram’s metaphor with formal network‐science results. ### OT-016: Alien Civilizations in Rulial Space - **Claim:** Successful contact with “rulial aliens” requires bridging rulial distance—shared description languages and experimental history. - **Data:** Wolfram describes the dual notion of physical vs. rulial distance, with communication needing overlapping history ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)). - **Warrant:** Information theory shows that decoding novel code requires shared protocol or training data. - **Backing:** In cryptography, shared keys/protocols enable message decoding; without them, signals appear as noise ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)). - **Qualifier:** Applies to any observer‐based communication system. - **Rebuttal:** Universal translation devices might overcome deep separation if meta‐languages exist. - **SIFT:** - **Stop:** Question how “shared history” quantitatively maps to data transmission. - **Investigate:** Examine cross‐linguistic translation research and universal grammar hypotheses. - **Find Trusted Sources:** Chomsky on universal grammar; translation‐memory systems. - **Trace:** Map translation challenges to rulial‐space metrics. ---
**Key References for Further Study:** 1. **“The Concept of the Ruliad,”** Stephen Wolfram, Nov 12 2021 ([The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/)) 2. **Turing Completeness,** Wikipedia ([Turing completeness - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness)) 3. **Causal Invariance,** Wolfram MathWorld ([Causal Invariance -- from Wolfram MathWorld](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CausalInvariance.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) 4. **Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model,** J. Gorard (2020) ([Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model](https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) 5. **Multiway Systems in Rewriting Logic,** Term Rewriting Systems literature (e.g., Baader & Nipkow) 6. **Principle of Computational Equivalence,** NKS (Chapter 12) 7. **Conceptual Spaces,** Peter Gärdenfors (Cambridge Univ. Press) 8. **Semiotic Sign Theory,** C. S. Peirce / Umberto Eco –– ChatGPT