I’m committed to seeing this project done. To see if within this decade we can finally hold in our hands the rule for our universe, and know where our universe lies in the space of all possible universes.

What will limit us is not the possible evolution of technology, but the evolution of human purposes.

So the thing I realized rather gradually – I must say starting about 20 years ago now that we know about computers and things – there’s a possibility of a more general basis for rules to describe nature.

Well, the first thing to say is that we’ve worked hard to maintain compatibility, so that any program written with an earlier version of Mathematica can run without change in 3.0, and any notebook can be converted.

The thing that got me started on the science that I’ve been building now for about 20 years or so was the question of okay, if mathematical equations can’t make progress in understanding complex phenomena in the natural world, how might we make progress?

If I can’t understand something, then it’s probably nonsense.

It has been proven that the universe is computationally equivalent to my ego.

If I can't understand something, then it's probably nonsense.

...All the wonders of our universe can in effect be captured by simple rules, yet ... there can be no way to know all the consequences of these rules, except in effect just to watch and see how they unfold.

I want to know the truth, however perverted that may sound.