Not really. It's very vague -- he is just repeatedly saying "well, you could write down X in terms of graphs in this way." But you can write down anything in terms of anything. You can write a compiler in PowerPoint because it's Turing complete. You can write the Bible in Klingon. You can write about making a burrito in category theory.

Languages are just packaging. In order to have content, you have to nail down specifics, and here the choice of language can be useful because the specifics might be more naturally expressed in some languages than others. But Wolfram hasn't begun this journey.

Sure, I agree. However there is value in a phrasing, eg., phrasing classical mechanics in Hamiltonian terms permitted unification with QM, and understanding of non/classical limits.

...

also,

> In our previous paper[1], we formally introduced the Wolfram Model[2] - a new discrete spacetime formalism in which space is represented by a hypergraph, and in which laws of physics are modeled by transformation rules on set systems - and investigated its various relativistic and gravitational properties in the continuum limit, as first discussed in Stephen Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science (NKS)[3]. Our central result was the proof that large classes of such models, with transformation rules obeying particular constraints, were mathematically consistent with discrete forms of both special and general relativity

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/so...