I have some basic issues with your post.
The idea I use is that the basis of what we like to think of as our
universe and all other universes is "There is no information".
This is not really an assumption in the sense that you can not extract
anything from nothing as one usually extracts consequents [data snips] from
the information in some assumption set. Rather it is more a principle that
one attempts to sustain while building dynamic universes.
To initiate this one can notice that "no information" has two simultaneous
yet completely counterfactual expressions - all information and no
information - and further that there must be a dynamic boundary between
them - this latter part from the idea that no information requires no
selection, that is both expressions must exist and the "all information"
expression contains its counterpart in an infinite nesting with itself -
this because it is the ensemble of all counterfactuals which must include
both itself and the "no information" expression.
One now simply explores the dynamic of this boundary [the dynamic comes
from the need to avoid selection - no fixed boundary, and the dynamic is
random for the same reason - no selected pattern] while sustaining the
balance of counterfactuals.
While this approach allows for no rationale for why we are in this
particular universe why should there be one? Ours is just one of an
uncountable set that contain large sub structures and can transition to a
next state while sustaining most of them.
In any event in my view your argument makes many assumptions - i.e.
requires substantial information, isolates sub systems, and seems to allow
many sub states between states of interest all of which are counter to my