> learning string theory first is ... not that stupid
I disagree, it would be stupid to start with ST. I think you're making judgements without fully understanding what the conclusions entail. This requires so much more complexity that doesn't matter for 99.9% of things. We leverage emergence because it allows us to drop complexity at different levels.
For a different look maybe check out Wolfram's Metamathematics, since it's arguably a candidate for a ToE. Or think about learning math by stating at ZF set theory. I think you might think this is fine at the beginning but are going to quickly hit a wall.
And remember that GA also has lots of limitations. Don't forget that just because you're advancing doesn't mean you've gotten to the beginning.
Thanks a lot for again answering, i'm always open to correction and further hints. Wolfram Metamethematics sounds really cool and captures what i think about structure before data - i'll certainly have a look and try to bridge it to my category theory understanding.
I wrote an n-dim engine based on graphs -> 4D tree -> rendering you might like as it would basically support any ruleset and honestly after getting there orientation personal for me died down so maybe me talking without not much academic background is a way to find further pointers.
The choice of words for "first principles" is misleading, granted, but the discussion about what these are might be less fruitful than encouraging the author to stay at it and keep it constructive criticism.
For a different look maybe check out Wolfram's Metamathematics, since it's arguably a candidate for a ToE. Or think about learning math by stating at ZF set theory. I think you might think this is fine at the beginning but are going to quickly hit a wall.
And remember that GA also has lots of limitations. Don't forget that just because you're advancing doesn't mean you've gotten to the beginning.