[HN Gopher] What Is Ruliology?
___________________________________________________________________
What Is Ruliology?
Author : helloplanets
Score : 74 points
Date : 2026-02-03 06:40 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (writings.stephenwolfram.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (writings.stephenwolfram.com)
| deepsun wrote:
| 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.
| ForceBru wrote:
| 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.
| uwagar wrote:
| he be the trump of his new kinda science world.
| JadeNB wrote:
| I think the comparison is unfair. Wolfram is endowed with a
| very generous sense of his own self worth, but, other than
| the victims of his litigation, I'm not aware that he's
| hurting anybody.
| SanjayMehta wrote:
| 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...
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Some things, like the foundations of mathematics, are not
| falsifiable.
|
| You judge them by how useful they are.
|
| Ruliology is a bit like that.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| Sure, but everyone always says that. What do you think of what
| he wrote about?
| chvid wrote:
| 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.
| elric wrote:
| 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.
| chvid wrote:
| 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?
| TuringTest wrote:
| 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
| meghanto wrote:
| This looks very exciting but wolfram language being paywalled
| makes me super sad I can't play around with it
| ForceBru wrote:
| 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.
| chvid wrote:
| You can play around with this:
|
| https://www.wolframalpha.com/
| JadeNB wrote:
| In my experience, Alpha works very hard to force you into a
| natural-language syntax that takes away much of the fun of
| the rule-based aspects of the Wolfram language.
| uwagar wrote:
| he invented the term and so pleased its blowing up.
| chvid wrote:
| 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.
| jacquesm wrote:
| 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.
| gritspants wrote:
| 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.
| psychoslave wrote:
| And you were smart enough to verbalize this in a neat short
| humble sentence, a remarkable feat, bravo!
| abetusk wrote:
| Wolfram has failed to live up to his promise of providing tools
| to make progress on fundamental questions of science.
|
| From my understanding, there are two ideas that Wolfram has
| championed: Rule 110 is Turing machine equivalent (TME) and the
| principle of computational equivalence (PCE).
|
| Rule 110 was shown to be TME by Cook (hired by Wolfram) [0] and
| was used by Wolfram as, in my opinion, empirical evidence to
| support the claim that Turing machine equivalence is the norm,
| not the exception (PCE).
|
| At the time of writing of ANKOS, there was a popular idea that
| "complexity happens at the edge of chaos". PCE pushes back
| against that, effectively saying the opposite, that you need a
| conspiracy to prevent Turning machine equivalence. I don't want
| to overstate the idea but, in my opinion, PCE is important and
| provides some, potentially deep, insight.
|
| But, as far as I can tell, it stops there. What results has
| Wolfram proved, or paid others to prove? What physical
| phenomena has Wolfram explained? Entanglement still remains a
| mystery, the MOND vs. dark matter rages on, others have made
| progress on busy beaver, topology, Turing machine lower bounds
| and relations between run-time and space, etc. etc. The world
| of physics, computer science, mathematics, chemistry, biology,
| and most of the others, continues on using classical, and newly
| developed tools independent of Wolfram, that have absolutely
| nothing to do with cellular automata.
|
| Wolfram is building a "new kind of science" tool but has failed
| to provide any use cases of when the tool would actually help
| advance science.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| 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.
| gilleain wrote:
| 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.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| 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!)
| amiga386 wrote:
| > How did one part decide to become the tip of your nose,
| and the other the tips of your toes?
|
| Homeobox genes, right?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenesis
|
| Yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_Basis_of_Mo
| rphoge...
|
| But also:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_plan#Genetic_basis
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_potency
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo-devo
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydqReeTV_vk
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Right. is "the basic science of what simple rules do" not the
| same as Formal systems?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system
| lupire wrote:
| It's not Formal Systems.
|
| Formal Systems is the study of logical systems themselves.
|
| Ruliology is a study of what actual systems do.
|
| It's doing the arithmetic computations and looking at the
| results, not the abstract algebra.
| whatever120 wrote:
| How is an "actual system" distinct from a formal system?
| What is actual?
| Supermancho wrote:
| I assume it's related to the aphorism:
|
| In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice,
| they are not.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Not quite. A formal system is a system of syntactic rules
| defined over an alphabet of symbols. They can be mechanized
| in principle. Peano arithmetic is one example.
|
| A ,,logical" semantics can be assigned to such a formal
| system, but it is not a necessary entailment of the syntax,
| even if such systems are typically motivated by particular
| semantic models. Model theory might examine how the same
| formal system affords different interpretations.
|
| Such syntactic systems have computational properties, and
| it is how computer science kicked off historically.
| oulipo2 wrote:
| Alan Turing is FAR from the first computer scientist, though,
| if we want to be pedantic
| nurettin wrote:
| It is generative functions. Wolfram is grifting again.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| By the same argument, it's mathematics because John Conway was
| a mathematician, and it's physics because Ulam and Von Neumann
| were physicists.
| psychoslave wrote:
| 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.
| ..
| gnfargbl wrote:
| 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.
| ontouchstart wrote:
| Aristotle is the founder of biology:
|
| https://youtu.be/kz7DfbOuvOM
| KineticLensman wrote:
| Actually, the bottom layer from which God created the
| cosmos was originally Computer Science. Where else do you
| think all the chaos came from?
| JadeNB wrote:
| I've never understood why we first become masters of
| science only to become doctors of philosophy ....
| MarkusQ wrote:
| Because Philosophy need serious medical attention?
| ontouchstart wrote:
| These are computer scientists:
|
| https://youtu.be/wQbFkAkThGk
| mathgradthrow wrote:
| Von Neumann was a mathematician, thank you very much.
| happa wrote:
| It's starting to sound an awful lot like a Ruligion.
| throwaway132448 wrote:
| Surprised it's not called Wolfrology. This man is ego personified
| - not reading.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| If you want other people to name something after you, you have
| to give it a name they have reason to replace.
| JadeNB wrote:
| I believe that Banach called the spaces now named after him
| "spaces of type B," presumably to make a stab at modesty.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > 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
| throwaway132448 wrote:
| Fair enough. However I feel that there are plenty of others
| we could give our finite attention to, from who we would
| derive as much or more benefit from. So that's what I'll do,
| with no net loss for me.
| inimino wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway132448 wrote:
| It's called "being the change you want to see". I want to see
| less ego, so I'm telling those who are the opposite that it
| has downsides.
| inimino wrote:
| FYI, "be the change you want to see" is approximately the
| golden rule "do unto others". If you want less ego in the
| world, demonstrate it yourself. It does _not_ mean
| "complain about how other people act".
| throwaway132448 wrote:
| I said I want to _see_ less ego. Calling out assholes is
| being that change, because not enough people do it. If
| you're going to try and feel superior through
| technicality (which let's be honest, claiming a single
| interpretation of a common phrase is a dumb way of trying
| to achieve that), at least pay attention to the details.
| globalnode wrote:
| yeah i get the emotional push back but putting that aside, he
| still seems fairly well accomplished, more-so than me by a long
| shot and at least he is throwing nerdy ideas out there we can
| think about or discuss.
| lupire wrote:
| Wolframology is the study of Stephen Wolfram.
| old8man wrote:
| 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.
| voxleone wrote:
| I don't get the down voting. Yes, it lacks primitive ontology,
| exactly.
| mvr123456 wrote:
| 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...
| meindnoch wrote:
| Wolfram's eulogy will be titled: "A life wasted on cellular
| automata"
| psychoslave wrote:
| Thanks for the laugh. :D
| stabbles wrote:
| Whenever Wolfram brings up cellular automata again, I think of
| John Conway who got tired of being known for Conway's Game of
| Life.
| libertine wrote:
| That seems quite a bold eulogy, no?
|
| Isn't he well accomplished, and prolific throughout his life?
| ajb wrote:
| He is. But he's also convinced that cellular automata will
| replace the standard model as the foundation of physics, and
| that he will therefore be known to history as the third
| founder of physics after Newton and Einstein.
|
| /s
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| Given that he's known for priority disputes and legal action
| over who did what and when, that "well-accomplished" bit
| should have an asterisk next to it.
|
| http://bactra.org/reviews/wolfram/ is still a classic.
| meindnoch wrote:
| Is he?
|
| His last 30 years can be summarized as: "Look at these
| pictures of cellular automata! I predict that the world can
| be described with cellular automata like these!"
| the__alchemist wrote:
| What topic will yours have been wasted on?
| coke12 wrote:
| I don't know, I've been involved in computer science for
| several decades now and cellular automata hasn't really lost
| its charm. Seems like a cool thing to dedicate your life to!
| rdtsc wrote:
| It's his life. I can certainly look at many other lives and say
| they are lot of more wasted than his. Heck, he already created
| Mathematica, if he wanted to go and lay on the beach for the
| rest of this life, it would still be a lot less wasted than
| what many other people have accomplished in related domains.
|
| Yeah, I don't like his arrogance, it's very grating to read.
| And perhaps nothing revolutionary is going to end up as a
| result of all the play with cellular automata but it's still
| interesting. Not as a rule, but sometimes discoveries in
| history are made by wild and wacky directions of research.
| psychoslave wrote:
| 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
| KnuthIsGod wrote:
| Classic psychoceramicology.
| http://bactra.org/notebooks/psychoceramics.html
| voxleone wrote:
| 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..
| .
| findthewords wrote:
| Ruliology is the nerdiest word ever invented, kudos to Stephen
| Wolfram.
| seeg wrote:
| One thing I can say about the Wolfram language is that is
| actually Lisp with syntax that looks weird at first sight.
|
| However when you look at rule processing, it's like pattern
| matching on steroids that I haven't seen in lisp world. It looks
| quite powerful and applies throughout the language (eg the
| "Query" book).
|
| Too bad the whole language is closed and so heavily licensed .
| jacquesm wrote:
| > it's like pattern matching on steroids that I haven't seen in
| lisp world
|
| But it does exist in the FP world: Prolog, Erlang.
| krackers wrote:
| It's a great blend of Lisp and APL, wrapped up in a notebook
| interface with first-class interactivity.
|
| Mostly I just use it as an overpowered calculator though.
| akkartik wrote:
| This is some pompous shit.
|
| I kinda liked some of his previous articles, but come on. A
| picture of a plaque for a department is pretty much a guarantee
| it _won 't_ happen.
|
| Not to mention: departments?! Anybody still desiring to create
| new departments in the bureaucracy of our modern educational
| institutions has a stunted imagination. The appropriate attitude
| with which to approach creating a new department is while holding
| one's nose.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-07 23:01 UTC)