Compressibility, law and known facts to memorize

David Deutsch begins his book entitled The Fabric of Reality stating that the meaning of “to know everything is known” is equal “to understand” the world, but it doesn’t mean the knowledge of every isolated fact. We are far from a theory of everything which would be able to explain how our World works, but it “distinctly less fantastic than the idea that one person could memorize every known fact.” [p. 3]
It is not a surprise to found ourselves in a Universe which can be at least partially interpretable by laws –perhaps a primitive form of life could be able to evolve without a kind of predictability, but an intelligence able to interpret the World surely not. A kind of compressibility is the feature which allows to use shorthand to calculate the reality from certain pieces of information (i.e. a planetary orbits). Opposite to it, a string is random if we cannot present a representation of it which is shorter than the original sequence (Barrow: New Theories of Everything 2007, p. 11.).
Having studied a special musical instrument named lyre the Pythagoreans concluded that the reality ruled by numbers, and because of their intellectual heritage we regard self-evident that the description of the nature is compressible thanks to the numbers. It is not questionable that this mathematics based method proved to be really efficient to describe some aspects of reality.
On the other hand, there are incompressible things: i.e. it is trivial that there is no a shorter version for a poem which is equal to it, and it is a particular feature of the Universe that it can be divided into a compressible and an incompressible part.
Obviously, not “every known fact” mentioned by Deutsch is mathematically non-accessible, but our World’s another feature the proportion of the rules and the data we should memorize is unequal.
There are so few rules that some scientists hope to reduce all of them to a super formula. As it was mentioned earlier, the existence of intelligent life prescribes the existence of a very huge amount of data, since the evolution of thinking required billion years, and a long period of time means many events.
But on the one hand, why was it a so slow process? On the other hand: why do not exist many-many more laws even comparable in amount to the “every know facts?” Is it a requirement of a biofil Universe or only an accident?

And a concluding remark: we can draw up a categorization based on the relationship between "rules" (circa compressibility) and "data". Obviously the fifth subcategory is the most interesting where the efficiency of rules is determined either by a nonlinear function or changes randomly.

	efficiency	example
1.	perfect (theoretically)	compressible macro physical laws
2.	zero	poem, human society's evolution, etc.
3.	less and less efficient over time	meteorology
4.	more and more efficient	calculation by iterations
5.	different patterns determines the effectifiency in time than the third or fourth subcategory	?

Super fine-tuned worlds and infinitely many universes

The typical “our Universe is fine-tuned for life” argument states that small changes in certain constants result a lifeless Universe. For example, a 2% percent stronger strong nuclear force’s consequence would be a lifeless Universe, since the formation of heavier elements never would happen under such conditions. “Although our situation is not central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent” says Anthropic Principle’s advocate Brandon Carter [In Modern Cosmology and Philosophy (ed. by John Leslie), 1998, p. 132.].
But as Stephen Jay Gould pointed out “any complex historical outcome – intelligent life on Earth, for example – represent a summation of improbabilities and becomes thereby absurdly unlikely” [ibid, p. 187]. So our special situation is not necessarily a consequence of the fine-tuning.
Similarly, Feynman joked on his luckiness, since he had observed accidentally the ARW357 license plate although the probability of it was practically zero.
And there are other problems with arguments about fine-tuning.
First of all, life is sensitive to some physical parameters. Opposite to it, computing is insensitive to the changes of almost all of them. But it doesn’t mean that our biology is extremely fine-tuned (or extremely matches) to our Universe’s conditions. Probably either a higher or a lower speed of light would not prevent the rise of life. We can play with the idea of a universe where the result of a minor modification of any parameter would result a dead world. It is not the case in our Universe, so we do not live in a so “super fine-tuned” world.
Second of all, “to be privileged” means that the given situation is not average but applying this to the biofil universe concept, there is an unspoken presupposition behind it. If we assume that there are some other universes then uniqueness has a meaning. In other words: if we hypothesize that only a finite number of other universes exist then the “privileged position” is interpretable. But if we are suppose that infinite other worlds (no matter how we define them) exist then we have to believe that infinitely many universes of them are identical with our one. What is more, in this case the number of lifeless; the biolfil and the computable universes are equal – after all, any kind of them have infinitely many identical copies. Thus the meaning of “privileged to some extent” is uninterpretable.

Life, Universe and multiverse

According to Bernard Carr, “the Multiverse picture reduces the strong anthropic principle to an aspect of a weak one” [in Universe or Multiverse, Oxford Univ. Press, 2007, p. 4], since it explains our Universe’s biofil features by hypothesizing the existence of the multiverse. If we accept the existence of (infinitely) many other universes, it is not a surprise to find ourselves in a universe fine-tuned for life. It is a consequence of the selection effect: we can live in a universe which is suitable for life, while there many, lifeless worlds (obviously, without any intelligent observer).
This reasoning based on some unspoken assumptions.
Although Abraham Loeb argues [The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe, 2013] that there was an opportunity for the appearance of the life already 10 – 17 million years after the Big Bang, it seems to be evident that because of the physical laws, a relative huge and old universe is needed for the appearance of life. Still in Loeb’s example, the criterions of the life didn’t appear immediately after the beginning. So at least in a world governed by our laws of physics, we have to wait for some time before the first organism can be created. Obviously, it is an interesting question whether a universe with different physical laws can produce life within the first seconds. And it is a more interesting question that how long time needed for the formation of the intelligence in another Universe. Ad absurdum, one can imagine a world where the basic elements of life are cooked in the twinkle, but evolution is another story, since it based on natural selection. So a lot of steps is needed to reach a certain complexity. The appearance of the intelligence at a very, very early period of the Universe would be a powerful argument for the existence of a Creator.
Turning back to the original questions, it seems to be a well-founded argument that there are some criterion of the emergence of life and intelligence. It isn’t possible them to come into being without some physical conditions.
It is imaginable that to the emergence of a biofil universe many other universes’ existence needed. After all, life requires a relative long past with relative huge spatial extension, and ad analogiam, it cannot be excluded that a universe fine tuned for life requires the existence of other universes.
Obviously, it seems to be a not too serious concept. But Carr’s concept is based exactly on this, since he leads back the existence of our biofil environment to the existence of other universes. According to him, our Universe was chosen by chance, but I can imagine that there is a connection between our Universe and the others, and this connection isn’t based on a kind of chance, but on some kind of physical laws.
What is more, arguing that only a few (or only one) habitable universe exists, Carr suggest that life is not a general phenomenon, but an exception. But at least theoretically it is imaginable that life is necessarily associated with the presence of the matter (although not every, but) in several universes.
Or, ad absurdum, we can play with the idea of an “Ultimate Anthropic Principle” which prohibits the born of any lifeless universe. Who knows – we have only one example for a biofil world, and it isn’t enough for generalization.