Here’s Wolfram:

It’s unexpected, surprising—and for me incredibly exciting. To be fair, at some level I’ve been working towards this for nearly 50 years. But it’s just in the last few months that it’s finally come together. And it’s much more wonderful, and beautiful, than I’d ever imagined.

In many ways it’s the ultimate question in natural science: How does our universe work? Is there a fundamental theory? An incredible amount has been figured out about physics over the past few hundred years. But even with everything that’s been done—and it’s very impressive—we still, after all this time, don’t have a truly fundamental theory of physics.

OK, so what do we need to do now? I’m thrilled to say that I think we’ve found a path to the fundamental theory of physics. We’ve built a paradigm and a framework (and, yes, we’ve built lots of good, practical, computational tools too). But now we need to finish the job. We need to work through a lot of complicated computation, mathematics and physics. And see if we can finally deliver the answer to how our universe fundamentally works…

Stephen Wolfram, “Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics… and It’s Beautiful” atWolfram Writings

Heady. Another view:

It is absolutely possible that Wolfram has stumbled upon a deeper truth about the universe. But at the moment, he’s just another physicist with an idea. This idea should be taken as skeptically as any other that claims to explain the entire universe, meaning outside experts should check that it doesn’t contain glaring errors. Any strong hypothesis should be able to tell us something new and testable about the universe. While a Q+A on the matter says that the theory produces testable predictions, it also contains a worrying statement: Basically, Wolfram says that his idea cannot be proven wrong, writing that “Any particular rule could be proved wrong by disagreeing with observations, for example predicting particles that do not exist. But the overall framework of our models is something more general, and not as directly amenable to experimental falsification. Asking how to falsify our framework is similar to asking how one would prove that calculus could not be a model for physics. An obvious answer would be another model successfully providing a fundamental theory of physics, and being proved incompatible.” In other words, Wolfram is saying you can only prove him wrong by coming up with your own framework that solves all the mysteries of the cosmos.

Ryan F. Mandelbaum, “The Trouble With Stephen Wolfram’s New ‘Fundamental Theory of Physics’” atGizmodo

Let’s see if this Answer to Everything is still a buzz in the fall.

We need to work through a lot of complicated computation, mathematics and physics. And see if we can finally deliver the answer to how our universe fundamentally works…This is funny because “complicated computation, mathematics and physics” somehow do not sit well with “fundamental.” In my view, if it’s fundamental, it’s not complicated; it’s the exact opposite. The fundamental is simple by definition.

I hope he’s taken on board the new finding about the “directionality” of the universe and Epstein didn’t kill himself.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/28/new-findings-suggest-laws-of-nature-not-as-constant-as-previously-thought/

In order to discover how the universe works, one must first believe in God. The laws of physics show a sense of order to the universe, which cannot be explained via Big Bang. Big Bang requires a chaotic universe, which means there should by no laws at all. Chaos only creates chaos. For order to exist, such as the case with the laws of physics, order must have been there right from the start.

As to:

Everybody and their Grandmother who is involved in trying to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the quote/unquote “Theory of Everything” is trying to do so by finding a single mathematical framework in which the two theories can peacefully coexist.

There are a few problems with trying to mathematically unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the quote/unquote “Theory of Everything”. One of the biggest problems is that Kurt Gödel proved that mathematics was incomplete. As Stephen Hawking himself, an atheist, admitted, “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything,”

The implications of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem are fairly straightforward. As Stanley Jaki noted,

So even if we had just one single mathematical theory of everything, (instead of the two theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), that still would not exclude God.

As David P Goldman stated, (via Gödel’s incompleteness theorem), “we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable”.

In fact, the problem is far worse than Gödel had originally laid out in his incompleteness theorem. According to subsequent work done by Gregory Chaitin, “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”

Having “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms” presents an insurmountable problem for atheists. As Steven Weinberg, an atheist, explained to Richard Dawkins, “we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’.”

The answer to this insurmountable problem of having an infinite number of true mathematical theorems to choose from is obvious. As Bruce Gordon stated, “This transcendent reality (that our universe depends on) cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,

Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.”

Dr. Gordon is not just whistling Dixie when he stated that “our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them.” Both Einstein and Wigner are on record as to regarding it as a miracle that we are able to accurately describe the universe with mathematics:

One of the most persistent mathematical problems with trying to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics arises from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity conflict that crops up in different places of each theory:

Whereas the infinity between Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity was ‘renormalizable’ into Quantum Electrodynamics, (at the cost of tossing Quantum Measurement and/or Conscious Observation itself by the wayside),,,

Richard Feynman (and others) were only able to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics into Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) by quote unquote “brushing infinity under the rug” with a technique called Renormalization.

This “brushing infinity under the rug” to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics into QED came at the (unacceptable) cost of also brushing ‘the measument problem’ and/or conscious observation under the rug. As Adam Becker stated, “Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.”

Thus, the ‘brushing infinity under the rug’, since it brushed quantum measurement itself under the rug, basically brushed humans themselves under the rug. That is simply unacceptable for any theory that purports to be the true ‘theory of everything’.

,,,Whereas the infinity between Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity was ‘renormalizable’ into Quantum Electrodynamics, (at the unacceptable cost of tossing Quantum Measurement and/or Conscious Observation itself by the wayside), no such ‘mathematical sleight of hand’ exists for unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity. (I saw no mention of this particularly thorny problem being solved in Wolfram’s article). General relativity simply refuses to be mathematically unified with quantum mechanics in any acceptable way. In technical terms, Gravity has yet to be successfully included into a theory of everything since the infinities that crop up in that attempt are not renormalizable as they were in Quantum-Electrodynamics.

As Professor Jeremy Bernstein states, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.”

Thus, there appears to be an impenetrable, even infinite, barrier that prevents theoretical physicists from ever realizing their dream of a single overarching mathematical theory of everything.

I would like to see Wolfram’s supposed solution to this problem of ‘infinite proportions’ since he certainly would have had to deal with it along the way to his making the rather audacious claim that he is well on his way to solving the long sought after ‘theory of everything’.

But anyways, and to reiterate, the main problem for Atheists in their quest to find a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ is that they still need God in order to explain the existence of the mathematics that describe the universe in the first place.

And if we back up to square one, and allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders of modern science),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company in 2018), if we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

As Isabel Piczek and Chuck Missler note in the following video and articles, the Shroud of Turin reveals a strange ‘event horizon’:

To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’

Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.

Kevin Moran, an optical engineer working on the mysterious ‘3D’ nature of the Shroud image, states the ‘supernatural’ explanation this way, “This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector.”

Moreover, the following article found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.

As well, seeing is believing

Another line of evidence that adds considerable weight to my claim the Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides us with the correct solution for the much sought after theory of everything is that both quantum mechanics and general relativity have now themselves, also, overturned the Copernican principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, and have restored humanity back to centrality in the universe:

Thus, if we follow the evidence where it leads, especially with the closing of the free will loop hole in quantum mechanics, and rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, then, to reiterate, Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

Of supplemental note: The actions we see in Quantum Mechanics, and defining attributes of consciousness, are far more tightly correlated than atheists are willing to honestly admit