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.

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...