https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/202 ... beautiful/

If this theory is based on General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics then you have a big problem from the start and when it comes to time, this theory only sees it as linear which is a big problem:

To quote Larson "Complexity is entertaining, simplicity is not":Time

In our models, space is defined by the large-scale structure of the hypergraph that represents our collection of abstract relations. But what then is time?

For the past century or so, it’s been pretty universally assumed in fundamental physics that time is in a sense “just like space”—and that one should for example lump space and time together and talk about the “spacetime continuum”. And certainly the theory of relativity points in this direction.But if there’s been one “wrong turn” in the history of physics in the past century, I think it’s the assumption that space and time are the same kind of thing. And in our models they’re not—even though, as we’ll see, relativity comes out just fine.

So what then is time? In effect it’s much as we experience it: the inexorable process of things happening and leading to other things. But in our models it’s something much more precise: it’s the progressive application of rules, that continually modify the abstract structure that defines the contents of the universe.As time progresses we are in effect seeing the results of more and more steps in a computation. And indeed the phenomenon of computational irreducibility implies that there is something definite and irreducible “achieved” by this process. (And, for example, this irreducibility is what I believe is responsible for the “encrypting” of initial conditions that is associated with the law of entropy increase, and the thermodynamic arrow of time.) Needless to say, of course, our modern computational paradigm did not exist a century ago when “spacetime” was introduced, and perhaps if it had, the history of physics might have been very different.

The version of time in our models is in a sense very computational.

Any fundamental theory of physics should be able to recreate the entire universe from some simple postulates and the Reciprocal System does this. The Wolfram Physics Project will only get worse and start coming up with dark matter, black holes or worse in order to try and explain what we observe since it is based on incorrect science from the start and not the simplicity of nature.

A universe of motion makes a lot more sense to me.

FIRST FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATE - “The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, Motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.”

SECOND FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATE - “The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.”

http://reciprocalsystem.org/PDFa/The%20 ... ela%29.pdf

http://reciprocalsystem.org/paper/the-tao-of-motion