Order vs. Randomness

[Angrboda]

2. Even though the Game of Life is a conceivable analogy of a basic aspect in nature (i.e. complexity arising from simpler, fundamental laws), it is hardly useful in explaining the amount of depth and the layers of complexity that exist in the real world, considering that the physical universe is enormously larger and that the laws of physics are considerably more complex than just the four rules implemented in the Game of Life. Therefore, the similarities drawn between the Game of Life and the physical universe are extremely superficial.

This is simply an argument from incredulity, and thus its conclusion is fallacious.

2. The ultimate simplicity that describe the universe has to be the most sophisticatedly simple.

As strange as this may sound to you, my perception is that the "simple" rules already have all the complexity encoded within them. It's just that the complexity is more hidden from us because the complexity is in a "compressed" state (i.e. inside the simplicity). Therefore, no matter how much scientists believe that it's possible for them discover the simplest and the "ultimate" law behind the universe, it's never going to happen because that fundamental law contains an even greater amount of surprise and mystery behind it - which conceals more and more information about itself - and thus it will always remain beyond our full comprehension.

The point is, there is a simplicity lurking behind all the complexity, and at the same time there is complexity lurking behind the simplicity, otherwise they wouldn't be what they are. So if there is a deep simplicity underlying everything in the universe (which I believe there is), then that would be the ultimate sophistication, the ultimate creativity. As Leonardo da Vinci very wisely noted in the same respect, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."

In terms of the Kolmogorov-Chaitin concept of information, the measure of information is how tightly you can make the simplest expression which, when uncompressed, yields the original data set. "Sophistication" is not a concept in information that I am familiar with, but since you keep appealing to Chaitin and compressibility, this would seem to be the appropriate guess as to which framework you're using. (If you prefer Shannon and informational entropy, correct my misapprehension.) I think that while the rules are certainly an important component of the information in the universe, the number of potential states is also a factor in determining how much total information is present; thus you can't just ignore the size of the universe as a part of what allows for such immense complexity because in doing so, you are simply discarding information content because it is inconvenient to your argument. As best I can tell, what you're suggesting is that certain simplicities are themselves possessed of inherent complexity. Beyond the meaning inherent in the Kolmogorov-Chaitin definition of information, this idea seems incoherent.