I don't buy this for a minute. With all due respect your comment reads as so much noise. Are you rejecting the premise? Then identify the premise and rebut it. Are you citing Wittgenstein or Chompsky, or just name dropping for the borrowed prestige? Since there is lots to chose from in their respective oeuvre, which arguments are you indicating? How does Wolfram run afoul of Kolmogorov?

I'm asking in earnest. Perhaps you know your stuff after all and we can get some signal here. Otherwise, I'm sorry to say but your comment comes across as empty, fluffy posturing that does not add much.