Thank you for the thoughtful response! I agree whole-heartedly that the LHC and others are necessary to determine what facts *can* be found, at our scale of funding and materials science. Those experiments give us the fixed points which any 'rule' must match *exactly* in order to be true.

There is also a concept coming from the math-side of things: if you look at the physical particles and interactions which emerge from every 'universe-rule', that set of possible particle physics is NOT a contiguous and complete set of all 'imaginable particle dynamics' according to physicists. Er, for example: physicists suppose that various physical constants might, in other universes, take *any* value along a *continuum*. Wolfram's 'universe-rules' can only produce a *tiny subset* of possible values of constants, like pinpoints along that continuum.

So: if we find the simplest 'universe-rule' which exactly matches all our fixed-points from LHC and the rest, then Occam's Razor says that the 'universe-rule-that-fits' is our pragmatic assumption, for the time being. The mathematicians are telling the physicists: "There aren't a *lot* of physical-constants-as-rule-emergence to choose from, and most won't fix certain fixed points exactly, such that real data can narrow-down options for the provisionally-valid universe-rules *quickly*." Which is good, I hope. :)